It's a good theory. Certainly, God knows what we are going to do and what aids we require to come to Him. Maybe God realizes that us Catholics need all the help we can get, so He sticks us in the fullness of Truth so that us "spiritual infants" can get the milk we need? Who can say?
I found over 40 references where Paul uses some form of "our Lord Jesus Christ". What else could he have meant?
I don't see that statement as encompassing what was later defined at Nicea, although it contains the beginning kernel.
Of course it depends on what one considers "Protestant". If one is in the 50,000 denomination camp, then sure, one will find every kind of belief imaginable. But among Bible-believing Protestants all of your examples are basically agreed upon, except for the Arminian question, and infant baptism (which is minor because all of us agree that baptism is non-salvific). And, on these differences, there really are only two groups.
While I don't buy the "50,000 denomination" argument that some Catholics repeat, I do sense a lot of separation of doctrine on some key issues. I think you could categorize all Protestants into 10-20 different major groups, which is still a lot of variety. On ANY difference, there may be two differences with many minor variations, but when you add in all the various questions of Christian doctrine, you are increasing the belief base. Say you have 10 major questions of the faith. You aren't going to have only two groups left that disagree on EACH doctrine. Some agree with "A", while these same folks disagree on "B". Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach a monolithic faith.
What do you mean "another"? It's the same thing.
Since when does the word "alone" in the phrase "Bible Alone" include the teachings of men? Remember, the verses of Eph 4 do not mention the Bible. How do you know that they are using the Bible alone in their teaching? Paul tells us that he uses oral and written teachings. It is safe to say that the other evangelists, pastors, and teachers mentioned in Ephesians 4 also use various methods to teach the faith. This in of itself denies the "alone" idea. While the Bible is a source that we CANNOT disagree with, we don't use it ALONE.
This is VERY clear when you read "Against Heresies" by St. Irenaeus. He complains that the Gnostic Christians were using the very same Bible that the Catholics were. So who was right? Irenaeus claims that we MUST use the Rule of Faith (what became the Creed) and the correct paradigm when we read the Bible. Irenaeus writes some very humorous stuff about the Gnostic ideas of their idea of dieties and sub-dieties. (He changes the names of their "godlets" like Sophia and Logos to Cucumber and Melon! He says one invented name is as good as another!)
Anyway, he is very instructive and his thought touches on our problem: How do we know how to read the Scriptures. How do we know whether the writers meant that Jesus was really present in the Eucharist? From the Bible, one can come up with several answers, but the orthodox, intended answer, according to him, is by following the teachings given, the Rule of Faith.
The first Christians got by with oral teachings of what would become the Bible.
Do you have a verse that states that the Bible swallows up the oral teachings? What do you use to interpret the Bible without these oral teachings, this "way" of reading the Bible? God knew what He was doing by implementing leadership that would guard the "deposit of faith".
Finally, at last you have publicly elevated the Magisterium above the Bible, as I have always thought. That is the only conclusion possible given that the Magisterium is unelected by the laity, and they determine the most important interpretations in the Bible. They are obviously superior to God's word under your system since they define it.
I don't recall even implying that. Sorry if I might have. If the Magesterium was above the Bible, then they could ignore it. They cannot. The Magesterium INTERPRETS the Bible and the Apostolic Tradition for the Church of today. As to "voting", it sounds like you are relying on man's inherent ability to learn what the Bible means WITHOUT taking into account that it is God who wrote the Bible through men. While our latent and natural talents are useful in discerning the Bible's intent, they will not uncover what is called "revelation". By its very definition, revelation is GIVEN. Thus, "voting" doesn't make a difference. God chooses those who will minister - that is Biblical, my friend. We don't choose.
You are confusing our interpreting the Bible a different way from you as "subverting the Bible", as if you have the sole meaning of the texts all figured out. The Church has mulled over the Scripures long before Protestants came on the scene. There was no "ulterior motive" to invent doctrines to piss off the future Protestants...
We do not place a duty on God to grace people and prevent them from sinning.
So how is God in "full control" then? Here, you say God has freedom to allow men to sin. But then elsewhere, you claim that man cannot choose God (even with God's help)because it would offend God's sovereignty. Seems like a contradiction.
I have no control over whether you accept my answer, but I almost always make an honest attempt TO answer. Whether I have answered is not dependent on if you agree with me. :)
Your "answer" does not solve the problem. Who is judged, God or man? You tell us that if man has free will, God's sovereignty is overthrown. Yet, if man cannot choose, how can he be judged or rewarded? You have not provided an answer that solves this question.
I don't know where you're coming from about my beliefs concerning judgment. There are at least two separate judgments. One for salvation and one for reward.
I have yet to see such an idea in Scriptures. Men are judged for heaven and for hell. And if people are of the elect from the beginning of time, why the need for a judgment for salvation? You have already said you are saved and of the elect. Does that mean you will bypass the "judgment for salvation"? If so, you do injustice to the Bible, as it says that all men will be judged, those who do good entering the Kingdom and those who do evil being cast into hell. That's it. Either you will get Life or not. There is nothing in the bible about getting 3 portions of life vs. 2.5 portions of life. Either you will live or you will die.
Regards
LOL! I am laughing because as of today I am actually much much more well-schooled in Catholicism than I am in other Protestant faiths. :) So, I don't have a number, but what you say does sound reasonable to me. I suppose everything would turn on what the "variety" is. For example, if I moved to a new town, I would not have the slightest hesitation in joining an Orthodox Presbyterian church, even though they baptize infants, and I'm a Baptist! :) It is certainly a different denomination, but I still feel in "communion" with them.
Say you have 10 major questions of the faith. You aren't going to have only two groups left that disagree on EACH doctrine. Some agree with "A", while these same folks disagree on "B". Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach a monolithic faith.
In all honesty, I don't know enough about other Protestant faiths to defend what should be my position. :) I suppose it would be the importance of the differences that matters.
Since when does the word "alone" in the phrase "Bible Alone" include the teachings of men?
Since ALWAYS! :) For example, say I was a lost person and you were my teacher. Let's say that you wanted to share with me the meaning of the prodigal son parable. Let's further say that in your judgment, the best way to reach me would be for you to "update" the story and tell it using modern terms and circumstances. So, you "make up" a brand new parable that does that. As long as you are faithful to the Christian teaching, this does not violate Sola Scriptura at all. It is only when the teachings of men are not supported by scripture that Sola Scriptura is violated. And, to be clear, this only applies to theology, not necessarily praxis. My altar call and your making the sign of the cross do not violate Sola Scriptura either.
Paul tells us that he uses oral and written teachings.
Yes, and his oral teachings did not contradict what he taught based on (then) scripture.
How do we know whether the writers meant that Jesus was really present in the Eucharist? From the Bible, one can come up with several answers, but the orthodox, intended answer, according to him, is by following the teachings given, the Rule of Faith.
Now how self serving is that??!! :)
Do you have a verse that states that the Bible swallows up the oral teachings?
There are plenty. First see all the verses where Jesus says "It is written...". Those prove what is true authority for us. Jesus never says "It has been orally taught apart from what is written that ...". Second, we have this:
Rev 22:18-19 : 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Certainly it is plausible to argue that this only applies to Revelation, I would disagree, however, there is more:
John 10:35-36 : 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? ......
As an aside, note I'm quoting John. :) Anyway, if the scripture cannot be broken, then it makes sense that all oral teachings which are Godly must conform with scripture. That is Sola Scriptura for authority. Finally, for now, there is this:
Prov 30:5-6 : 5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
The Bible swallows up the oral teachings that were true and faithful to what became the Bible. Certainly, some orally taught in contradiction to scripture, and we are warned to beware of them. But the Bible teaches us that we are not to add man-made tradition to God's own words.
What do you use to interpret the Bible without these oral teachings, this "way" of reading the Bible?
Although you do not accept it, the Holy Spirit leads me in interpretation.
God knew what He was doing by implementing leadership that would guard the "deposit of faith".
I do not believe that God abdicated that guardianship, as you apparently believe. I believe God is very active today in guarding the faith, and that He does not need our help.
You are confusing our interpreting the Bible a different way from you as "subverting the Bible", as if you have the sole meaning of the texts all figured out.
I am not confused on this. :) I do not accuse you of "subverting the Bible". I accuse your leaders of error in interpretation of it. And by no means do I say that I, or Southern Baptists, or Reformers, have the sole meaning of the texts all figured out. We do not.
FK: "We do not place a duty on God to grace people and prevent them from sinning."
So how is God in "full control" then? Here, you say God has freedom to allow men to sin. But then elsewhere, you claim that man cannot choose God (even with God's help) because it would offend God's sovereignty. Seems like a contradiction.
I'm afraid I am not following you. God is always fully in control. The LEVEL of His micromanagement is something I am not certain about. However, for anything that matters, God's fingerprints are all over it. Full control is always maintained. I am unaware of where I have said that man cannot choose God with God's help. To the contrary, I say that is exactly how it happens. God's sovereignty is preserved because "the help" is guaranteed to be efficacious.
You tell us that if man has free will, God's sovereignty is overthrown. Yet, if man cannot choose, how can he be judged or rewarded? You have not provided an answer that solves this question.
No, I say that if man is in control, then God's sovereignty is overthrown. We use the term "free will" differently. On judgment, you are applying a reasonable man's standards of fair play. Do you think God owes us this? Tell me what your first impression was when you first read Matt. 20. Mine was "this is a rip!". :) Our notions of fairness are mostly irrelevant. God makes His own rules, because He can. By God's standards, it is perfectly "fair" for Him to create a human who has no chance of winding up in Heaven. That is just a hard reality. It doesn't sound all nice and fluffy, but then neither is God.
And if people are of the elect from the beginning of time, why the need for a judgment for salvation? You have already said you are saved and of the elect. Does that mean you will bypass the "judgment for salvation"?
No, no bypass. All of us will be judged for salvation. For the elect, it will be a ceremony. Do you think high school graduation ceremonies are a waste of time? No, of course not. The outcome is predetermined, but they DO have a purpose. I'm looking forward to it! :) However, there will also be a time when I have to answer for my sins, and that I do not look forward to. Since God provides everything we need, I trust that God buys Kleenex in bulk.