/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>747547

Honest question: How old are you, and how new are you to Christianity?

Protestantism is a broad term for all Christian groups who historically associate with the Reformation, marked by their support for the five solas.

Protestants are further distinguished as evangelical or mainline.

Catholics reject the reformation in favor of historic Catholic decisions on particular doctrines. This is based on their belief that God is divinely guiding their institution.

The biggest issue is on differences in stating the gospel. Catholics require participation in the sacraments to be saved, while Protestants usually reject this in favor of belief alone.

>>747561

/Thread/

A more pertinent question would be the differences between Catholicism and orthodoxy.

>>747561

Name one influential protestant denomination that supports the very doctrine of the papacy

>>747711

Since every one is free to interpret the scriptures everyone is the pope of himself.

They trust in their own judgment instead of the Church's which is always guided by the Holy Spirit.

>>747719

find that teaching in protestantism

>>747727

Nowhere but that's what it is in practice.

>>747550

747547 is the Pope. He is afraid he made a mistake by celebrating the 500th of lutheran slight dissatisfaction with the status quo.

>>747566

>A more pertinent question would be the differences between Catholicism and orthodoxy.

We have that thread every week.

>>747738

How about the differences between orthodoxy and protestantism, then?

Catholic doctrine teaches that how one becomes justified before Elohim; they need to undergo a slow process of sanctification -with the help of the sacraments/grace- until they are pleasing in the Lord's sight, because every offspring of Adam is guilty of sin. Afterwords, the person's worthy of being among the heavenly hosts.

If for any reason a catholic still have the guilt of sin and dies on earth, he/she will be sent to purgatory to, as the name suggest become purged of their unrighteousness, until all that remains of them is a saint. And once any catholic achieved sainthood they can directly intercede for earthly people to God, and contribute their honourable works into the heavenly treasury of merit

Catholics claim that they have apostolic authority, which has the power to dictate over all of Christendom, and only them contain the legit rights on the sacraments.

Protestants (and proto-protestants) believe that they're so separated from God, and deserving of His wrath, that the only way they could escape it is by only His mercy. So, upon accepting YHWH's holy grace, which the divine Son gave with His life, the believer also becomes justified in His sight as an adopted child in the royal, heavenly realm, they receive the Holy Spirit. With this new breath of life within them, they can finally work to become sanctified then in turn-will give the Father glory. However, increasingly their faiths have been less emphasized pushing for a glorifying effort, instead they're becoming a quick "how to get out of hell" cult.

Protestants claim that they practice the only apostolic faith/tradition, which to them, legitimizes their ecclesiastical activities like baptism or marriage.

P.S. I know I'm receive push back for this.

Regarding the interpretation of God's word, both groups utilizes nearly identical methods to derivative meaning from the texts. The only real differences are the importation of beliefs into the word and that, to the Roman Catholics, the Pope finalizes the objective meaning of a text (although these 'finalized' verses are few in number).

>>747719

>Since every one is free to interpret the scriptures

Name one Protestant denomination that says this

>>751824

Non-denoms are also protestants.

>>751824

Well every denom has its own interpretation - therefore their differences even if just minor.

Dislike the doctrine? >>>start a new church/ join non-denom.

This is what sola scriptura implies.

Protestantism is relativism.

Catholicism is absolutism.

>>747727

>>751824

>>751837

I know that every protestant claims that sola scriptura means that scripture alone is their final authority, and interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Fact is, about all protestants claim this, yet about all protestants disagree with the interpretation of it (even if it's just on minor points).

So, some are wrong, some are right, but in the end all we can be sure is that it's the person interpreting it and not the Holy Spirit, and therefore a protestant's final authority is not the bible, but one's own interpretation of it.

It's the very reason why the 30k denoms meme exists, heck I saw it happening in my own family where my cousin converted to evangelicalism for her husband and suddenly she had another understanding as him.

You can also see it happening with Steven Anderson's community, where lots of his pastors are becoming non-trinitarians for some reason.

>>751840

>but in the end all we can be sure is that it's the person interpreting it and not the Holy Spirit

Why do you think you can be sure of that?

>>751846

If the Holy Spirit was guiding each individual protestant, it would be impossible for there to be a difference of doctrine among them, since there is but one true set of doctrines. Further, it would be impossible for each individual protestant to change their understanding of a passage without inevitably concluding that either:

The Holy Spirit is not (always) guiding them, and therefore they could be equally as wrong about everything else

or

They had never been guided by the Holy Spirit beforehand.

For some denominations, either conclusion would be equivalent to saying that they were never "saved" until that moment. For others, it only highlights the meaninglessness of the principle of Sola Scriptura, since if they can be so mistaken on some things, there is no reason to think they are not mistaken on other issues. This results in either

The protestant is unable to say what is and is not correct on every issue

or

The protestant will become adamant that they are never incorrect about anything, resulting in jokes like Steven Anderson or James White doing biblical """""exegesis"""""(gymnastics) to avoid having their roof cave in on them

It should be noted that the Catholic and Orthodox churches do not suffer from this flaw, for while they admit the conclusion that the individual is not always guided by the Holy Spirit and they can, of their own volition, make mistakes on understanding the faith, it is not admitted that councils, in their conclusions, are suffering the same issue. This would appear to be similar to the 2nd issue of doing gymnastics to defend ones interpretation. However, as the Catholic and Orthodox churches would agree, it is the conclusion of the issue that is immutable, for example (there is free will). The Catholic and Orthodox churches have much more freedom in interpretation with a guarantee of the conclusion, as opposed to a guarantee of the interpretation leading to it. Since the interpretation can change in small or large ways in light of the complete faith, but the conclusion of the interpretation must necessarily be the same.

To use a concrete example: A person may use the 2nd half of James 2 to argue faith and works. Another person may argue it does not show faith and works. The protestant must maintain their interpretation, otherwise it punches a hole in their doctrines. A catholic or orthodox could maintain it shows faith and works, or agree that it does not show faith and works. This does not, for them, punch a hole in their faith, since they would be able to maintain that if james 2 did not show faith and works, it is not so that other passages do not show faith and works. Thus whether they are correct or not on any particular interpretation, they still are able to maintain the conclusion of the interpretation. The protestant does not have the same safety.

It is also worth noting the process of the catholic and orthodox is far superior to the process of the protestant, since the catholic and orthodox, as befitting divine revelation, have an immutable guarantee of the articles of faith, and merely need to work backwards to understand the article. The protestant must necessarily work forwards, and has no method to prune his errors, since they cannot point to a set of immutable conclusions, but must work forwards, so it is not surprising that protestants arrive at vastly different conclusions, since they do not have any absolute truths to uphold. This is also why protestantism still suffers from ancient heresies about the trinity and so on. It is impossible to know where you are going in the protestant method, so anywhere ends up being fine.

>>751857

>If the Holy Spirit was guiding each individual protestant, it would be impossible for there to be a difference of doctrine among them, since there is but one true set of doctrines.

Before we continue the discussion, I would just like to add that this topic is new to me; I haven't spent a lot of time examining the differences between the major Christian denominations yet and their approaches to interpretation of scripture. In light of that, please bear with me.

I am a saved and baptized Christian, but don't consider myself a part of any major denomination at this time. I was baptized in a protestant church, but left that particular church years ago due to it being infested with Marxism, and over some other concerns regarding their approach to things that I won't get into here. I suppose that makes me a protestant by default, doesn't it?

At any rate, I'm interested to hear what you have to say on this matter, as I'm looking to find a good church to join in the near future, and after leaving my previous church I visited a number of other protestant churches (various denominations, but by no means all of them) and was not satisfied by what I found.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the Holy Spirit infallibly guides every Christian at all times. If someone has a false understanding of scripture, it is safe to say that they did not reach their insight by means of the Holy Spirit. This however does not mean that the Holy Spirit cannot in fact reveal the correct interpretation of the scripture to an individual Christian.

However, I see what you mean with regards to chaos versus order in regards to the approaches of an organized authority being the final word on the interpretation of scripture, versus individuals or small groups of individuals. I think these things could be modeled using client-server terminology (e.g. distributed systems versus centralized systems). Protestants are sort of like a distributed, federated system that has some basic integrity checking between nodes (the solas, Nicene Crede etc.), but beyond that the nodes are rather autonomous. The Catholic or Orthodox churches are more like large central nodes that have total authority over the state served to all of the clients. Interesting.

>Thus whether they are correct or not on any particular interpretation, they still are able to maintain the conclusion of the interpretation.

Having trouble understanding this. Are you saying that the conclusions they reach about the meaning of scripture are considered immutable, but that they could still in fact be incorrect?

>>751861

>If someone has a false understanding of scripture, it is safe to say that they did not reach their insight by means of the Holy Spirit

Here's your first problem.

By what standards do you put understanding of scripture to be false or not?

If it's your own interpretation, with or without the claim of the Holy Spirit guiding you (just like other's who disagree with you claim the same guidance), then you're the final authority.

If you say the interpretation of the majority, then which majority? The baptist majority, the apostolic majority, the Lutheran majority?

Apostolics have an absolute to clear this problem, we claim and firmly believe that an apostolic council is guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore infallible.

This does bring some problems with them too.

First of all, councils have strict rules in what can be defined as a Holy spirit guided council, even breaking one of these makes it fallible.

Second, a council, how legalistic in rules it might have been, cannot declare heresies (e.g. some modernists get a council together and declare same-sex marriage ok).

Third, for Catholics at least, a pope needs to confirm such a council, and depending on the circumstances this declaration can also be non-binding too.

>>751861

>This however does not mean that the Holy Spirit cannot in fact reveal the correct interpretation of the scripture to an individual Christian.

This is fair. I probably overstated the issue, but I'm glad that we both recognize the meaning I was aiming for.

>Having trouble understanding this. Are you saying that the conclusions they reach about the meaning of scripture are considered immutable, but that they could still in fact be incorrect?

I would put it like this:

The catholic and orthodox have a guarantee of conclusions. Thus any given interpretation that yields the same conclusions could be a valid interpretation. If a passage of scripture has a "correct" meaning, a person could even be incorrect on these, and still get the known conclusions. This means that we cannot say for certain if a given interpretation is the "correct" one, supposing there is, but we can never the less say what interpretations cannot be correct. Thus there can be a difference of opinion on the nature of free will, but any interpretations that deny free will exists in some form can automatically be excluded.

On the protestant side, they have a guarantee of interpretations. Therefore, they cannot have an incorrect interpretation of a passage without being incorrect on the conclusions. So if a protestant was to approach the free will issue, if he arrived at a different understanding of a passage from the "correct" one, he would go off mark by a potentially massive degree(to highlight this, look at the difference in protestant understandings of free will, and you will see what I mean).

Another way to put it is a catholic or orthodox could rule out every invalid interpretation, but may not necessarily get the "correct one". Even so, the catholic or orthodox would not err on the articles of faith(Free will works in manner 1 vs the article of faith there is free will). The protestant can only reach the "correct interpretation" (free will works in manner 1) and being incorrect on this results in potentially massive divergence from true doctrine.

I'm rushed for time so I hope that made sense to you.

>>751862

>By what standards do you put understanding of scripture to be false or not?

This is a good point. I would say that one would begin by analyzing if the interpretation contradicts the gospel. If it does, then it is false. Next, analyze if the interpretation contradicts God's commandments. If it does, then it is false. Then, analyze what the fruit would be of following that interpretation. If the fruit is bad, then it is false.

So that is one way you could begin trying to determine if scriptural interpretation is false or not. I would say that ideally this is something that is discussed with other Christians, so that each individual is not acting as a personal final authority on every matter.

>Apostolics have an absolute to clear this problem, we claim and firmly believe that an apostolic council is guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore infallible.

This is an interesting system, and I can see the benefits of it. I could also see some disadvantages. For example, what happens if the upper echelons of the church are subverted by demonic forces, and false councils are set up to created a perverse doctrine? What are the options at that point? I guess you might answer that that would be impossible, but I'm wondering if any decisions have been made by councils that have ever been overturned at a later date for some reason.

>>751865

>The catholic and orthodox have a guarantee of conclusions. Thus any given interpretation that yields the same conclusions could be a valid interpretation.

Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand. Are conclusions a set of axioms that cannot be contradicted by any interpretation? For example, the gospel of Jesus Christ's death and bodily resurrection?

I think in this case, what you are saying is that Catholics and Orthodox have a larger set of axioms to work from than protestants do, and those axioms are continually produced by church leadership as human understanding grows over time. Is this correct?

>look at the difference in protestant understandings of free will, and you will see what I mean

I wasn't aware there was a huge discrepancy here. I know that the Calvinists do not believe in free will, but I didn't know that that belief was held by many other types of protestants. What are the differences in understanding here between protestants are Catholic and Orthodox regarding free will?

>>751872

>one would begin by analyzing if the interpretation contradicts the gospel

If it contradicts YOUR interpretation of the Gospel.

You see where the problem is? Everything goes back to one's own interpretation and the assumption it's from the Holy Spirit.

>>>751872

>Are conclusions a set of axioms that cannot be contradicted by any interpretation?

That would be a good way to understand it.

>Is this correct?

It seems fair.

> I know that the Calvinists do not believe in free will, but I didn't know that that belief was held by many other types of protestants.

It is a complicated issue. Some protestants have followed Calvinism is denying free will altogether. Some have taken the other extreme and denied any limit on free will(Steven anderson and some other IFB's hold this position, for example). Catholics and Orthodox(I believe) hold that free will exists, and that humans have a good deal of it, but certain actions are not possible from the human themselves, hence free will is in a way restricted. This is often quoted as human will being damaged but not destroyed. Even within such a statement there are many ways to understand free will mechanically, on what principles it operates and how it interacts with omniscience and so on. I don't have a good enough understanding of these details to explain them. I'm sure there are some protestant sects that also hold a similar stance to catholics and orthodox, though I do not know how common it would be.

>>751905

It is against the doctrine of sola scriptura that you need additional special revelation from the Holy Spirit to understand the gospel.

The gospel is a very simple concept that children can hear and believe.

You cannot be indwelt with the Holy Spirit without first believing the gospel.

Not entirely related to the thread, but today I went to a Pentecostal church mass (out of pure curiosity and because it attracts more youth).

It was weird, lots of gospel music, exorcism (at least seems like I'm clean), some jew appreciation.

There were some good points though, and it really touched me on the points they were claiming for, so that our life may improve on the areas of relationships and professionally (but things that are screwed for me right now), but to be honest isn't that about the majority of most people's problems?

Overall I also got a feeling they work more to keep a tighter stronger community, I get why people like them, but at the same time I also got the feeling the pastors are like those people pyramid schemes, that have a strong ability to persuade people.

>>751923

>It is against the doctrine of sola scriptura that you need additional special revelation from the Holy Spirit to understand the gospel.

I have heard many protestants on here claiming that their revelation is inspired by the Holy spirit because they believe and a verse (can't recall which one) also says that if you believe the Holy Spirit will guide you.

>>752148

If that's true, it logically couldn't be applicable to one's initial gospel understanding because they hadn't yet received the spirit. Right?

I think this is a common trope across all christianity that's influenced by charismaticism. If the holy Spirit has told you, that's prophecy.

>>747561

Half the Catholics on here reject Vatican 2 and Francis anyways, what's the difference? And I don't believe in 900 million popes, I just think the other denominations have bad reading comprehension.

>>759126

inb4 ban for this truthful statement

>>759099

they are schismatics, and the difference is they are not connected with the actual Church. if you bother to pick up an historical book on Church history, you'd see that being in communion with the seat of St. Peter is extraordinarily important