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.
Well, that is a way of describing Sola Scriptura that I haven't heard before. I was under the impression that it means that one's theology must come from the bible alone. Thus, there is no room for "implicit theology" or speculations. I have heard people say with disgust that Catholics make the sign of the cross BECAUSE such a movement is not seen in the Bible! I have also heard some Protestants attack other Protestants because of the altar call was "extra-biblical" according to them.
Yes, and his oral teachings did not contradict what he taught based on (then) scripture.
Naturally. They should never contradict. Properly speaking, Tradition should not contradict because they both have God as their source. To us, Tradition is usually refered to as the WAY we read the Bible, not necessarily "unwritten" doctrines. The WAY we read the Bible is "unwritten" - it is a paradigm that has been passed down. When we see Jesus as "subordinate" to the Father in some of the Gospel verses, we do not take that to mean the Jesus was subordinate to the Father when considering the doctrine of the Trinity. THAT is an example of Apostolic Tradition. It is Scriptural, without doubt, but relies on a WAY of reading those Scriptures.
I wrote : 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.
You responded: Now how self serving is that??!! :)
I am merely refering to historical facts. If one reads the writings of the earliest Christians, they consider the Eucharist as the actual Body and Blood of Christ, not a symbol. Even the Romans knew this, since they accused the Christians of being cannibals. They wouldn't have been accused of cannibalism if the Eucharist was MERELY a symbol, would they? Wouldn't the Christians very easily deny the charge, saying "it's only a symbol! It is just bread and wine!" We never hear that... Thus, by examining the facts, we can discern how THEY interpreted the Bible. Being closer to the Apostles and speaking the language and having access to witnesses who have heard the Apostles teach, they would know, wouldn't they?
This is not self-serving, but following where history leads us. It is the OPPOSITE of being self-serving, because I am relying on someone else's teaching, not my own interpretation! I adjust my own ideas to what the Church teaches. There is our fundamental difference. I accept that I am not infallible when reading Scriptures and need a guide, and you believe that you are infallibly led when reading the Bible and need no help from the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth...
Until you realize that, YOU and your interpretations are self-serving. My interpretations are verified and corrected when necessary by the Church. You are the final authority on yours.
There are plenty. First see all the verses where Jesus says "It is written...".
That proves nothing. Jesus also says "you have heard it SAID"! in Matthew's Gospel chapter 5. Your quote from Revelation clearly refers ONLY to that particular book and ITS prophesies, not a future compilation of books that would be put together 250-300 years later!!! Most Protestant commentaries that I have read admit as much.
I do not find any Scripture that says "we no longer have to listen to oral teachings because everything has now been written down". Nothing like that. We are told to hold onto ALL the Traditions (teachings), whether oral or written. Nothing abrogates that. As I said before, oral teachings are important because they help us INTERPRET the written teachings.
John 10:35-36 : 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken—
I agree, Scriptures cannot be broken. I said that above. But how does that say that ONLY SCRIPTURES are to be followed? Surely, we follow things that are not in Scriptures, but do not compromise Scriptures. For example, the sign of the cross, a pious ritual that helps us remind us of Christ's work. Nowhere in the Bible is it done, as far as I can tell. Yet, it is not a contradiction of Scriptures. I would say this is one example of Apostolic Tradition.
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.
That is a huge assumption that is nowhere said in the Bible. Can't you even be consistent in your Sola Scriptura beliefs? You state something that is an extra-biblical belief! How utterly ironic that your doctrine rests on sand.
Again, you have nothing that overthrows Paul's words to hold onto ALL Traditions given, both oral and written. He says virtually the same to the Galatians and the Corinthians. I got to tell you, I don't see where oral teachings are abrogated, especially when you cite OT words - when CLEARLY, the people followed oral traditions in both the time preceding Christ's incarnation and the time following His resurrection. The community has always followed oral teachings and will continue to do so, since the Bible never abrogates this practice.
You are assuming that the Bible swallows up ALL oral teachings, but I can tell you that is flat wrong. I can give you many examples of oral teachings that are not in the Bible, but were most CERTAINLY practiced, such as the ritual of Baptism and the Eucharist. NOWHERE does the Bible discuss the entire liturgy involved during these sacraments - but we know they must have said and did SOMETHING!
Although you do not accept it, the Holy Spirit leads me in interpretation.
Fiddlesticks... I don't accept that because you have admitted yourself that you have been wrong before! Thus, you do NOT know if you are absolutely correct in any future interpretation. You cannot know WHEN the Spirit is actually guiding you and when you are just interjecting your own opinion, to later be proved to be wrong. This is just plain logic. To say that one interprets the Scriptures outside the Church, the pillar of Truth, and thinks he is led by the Spirit simultaneously, is just fooling himself. The Spirit does NOT lead the Church and the individual in opposite directions. When your interpretation is against the Church's, yours (or mine) is wrong.
I accuse your leaders of error in interpretation of it
Based on your presumption that you are infallible, no doubt. Well, if they claim what you do, that you are "led by the Spirit", then there seems to be a problem, don't you think? WHO does the Spirit lead? Only you? This is why private interpretation MUST fail, logically. IF private interpretation was correct, then everyone who claims that the Spirit leads them would be in TOTAL agreement. They are not...
Regards