Replies

"And the entirety of your own answers are nonexistant. So much for decrying the tendency to simply duck the question."

No need to get upset. I did not finish my sentence in that last post. It should have read,

"Your other questions are excellent ones, and would be well put to the rest of the readers of this thread, or would make a great topic for another thread."

I typed that, but snipped it while proof-reading.

Your other three questions were: "

What are they disagreeing on? What common ground remains between them? Is any disagreement, on any issue for any reason, permitted in your view?

Those are indeed the million dollar questions, Alex. What are we disagreeing on? That would be an extremely long list, wouldn't it? Free will, predestination to hell, man's role in salvation, is baptism necessary for salvation, what should we believe about infant baptism, is the Lord's supper merely a symbol or is Jesus physically present in it, limited vs. unlimited atonement, eternal security, is it necessary to keep the ten commandments or not, the rapture, to say nothing of abortion and homosexuality. Don't really need to go into the Resurrection as an historical event, the virgin birth, inerrancy of the bible,and the timeline of creation, as we're on Free Republic. I think someone else mentioned differences in church government as well back on # 36.

"What common ground remains between them? "

Quite a bit, I'd say, and this is the question that begins all ecumenical conversations. This would be a great subject for another thread, or for that matter, this thread.

"Is any disagreement, on any issue for any reason, permitted in your view?"

Of course, but let's not trivialize the disagreements. What we're talking about here is disagreements big enough to split denominations.

Now, Alex, I've answered your questions, and would be interested in your answer.

I'm asking a very simple question. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

I'm asking a very simple question. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

I believe that it is perfectly understandable that fallible men will not agree upon every Christian teaching ... even as based upon the scriptures.

The scriptures are are inexhaustible source of spirtual wisdom ... and many truths within it's pages are only comprehended by the wisest and most spiritual of saints.

It might be more profitable to speak of where Protestants ... and Catholics ... and the Orthodox ... agree ... as to their beliefs ...

... for it is upon these that we base our unity.

The Nicene Creed is a good example of such agreement ...
The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.