If Protestant Christians claim that their doctrine,”sola scriptura” states the Bible is the sole authoritative source of God’s Truth and that the teachings are clear for each person, then why are there so many different versions and interpretations of God’s Truth?
God desires unity of His followers to believe in His revealed Truth and accept His love for us, but allows each person with their ‘free will’ to either choose God and follow His way or reject God and follow the ways of the world. Often it is easier to do ‘our will’ and not God’s will.
Churches are supposed to lead us to God, share God’s Truth and to help sinners repent, do penance and do God’s will. Do they? Or do they give us false promises (man’s truth), false information and not God’s Truth? Yes, they may quote verses and parables from the Bible and share some of God’s teachings, but do they make false promises about salvation? Do they make false promises that ‘faith alone’ is all that is needed?
Are protestant churches based on man’s doctrines
and not God’s Truth, based on heresy and rejecting the Church that Jesus founded?
Many protestant churches attempt to do good, but is good sufficient, if they reject God’s Truth? Yes there are sinners in all churches and organizations and if all of us rejected sin, then there would be peace on earth. Otherwise, we will suffer from the effect of sins during this life until we are judged and can join God in Heaven. We need to remember that the path is hard and the gate narrow.
As true followers of Christ, we need to accept God’s Truth and His love as a community of followers, The Body of Christ, members of Christ’s true church with our love for God and neighbor.
There aren't
Give us an example of said different versions and interpretations of God's Truth.
Specifics, please. Statements and sources and links.
And that being said, please explain the differences between the EO and the Roman Rite
These differences below are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split.
They have been in schism for over 1,000 years and both consider themselves to be the original Catholic church and the other to be in error and in schism.
The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:
The Holy Spirit (the filioque)
In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Pope - Authority of
EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.
RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).
Pope - Infallibility of
EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.
Purgatory
EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.
I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.
http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html
So who is everyone to believe when both claim they are right?
Oh hey, look who’s back declaring from on high what he knows for a fact what Protestants believe.
Not only is your definition of “sola scriptura” a strawman, but it’s a strawman that you continue to prop up after being corrected many, many times.
Stop using strawmen, ADSUM! If Catholicism really is as great as you claim it is, you can defend it without using strawman arguments!
A parroted polemic which you have been reproved for resorting to before, yet you persist in it, testing that you are one who being often reproved, ignores it in order to justify Catholic error. For "Protestant" is so broad that includes those who do not even believe the Bible to be the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, nor does SS mean that all its teachings are clear for each person. And thus your polemic that different versions and interpretations of God’s Truth disallows SS as being true is invalid.
In addition to which are the problems with your alternative to SS, that of sola ecclesia, under which you also have different versions and interpretations of what is claimed to be God’s Truth.
What is true is that the more strongly persons believe in the Bible as being the wholly inspired, substantive accurate and authoritative word of God then the more unified they are, in contrast to the fruit of Catholicism today.
God desires unity of His followers to believe in His revealed Truth and accept His love for us, but allows each person with their ‘free will’ to either choose God and follow His way or reject God and follow the ways of the world.
And as even one of your fellows RCs posts, in Catholicism you have,
1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner
(NOTE: Church Militant may have changed its position recently to be more directly in opposition to the Pope but I haven't kept track.)
A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org and which sums up the situation the way they see it by saying,
In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation. This is not now the place or time to critique or justify any of them. For now, we want to just describe them: (1) despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect; (2) we must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points; (3) because it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.
Are protestant churches based on man’s doctrines and not God’s Truth, based on heresy and rejecting the Church that Jesus founded?
What "protestant churches?" What we do know is that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
As true followers of Christ, we need to accept God’s Truth and His love as a community of followers, The Body of Christ, members of Christ’s true church with our love for God and neighbor.
The only one true church which the Lord promised to overcome the gates of Hell was and is not one organic organization outside of which no believers were to be found, but the one true church was and is the body of Christ that the Spirit baptizes every believer into, (1Co. 12:13) and to which He is married. (Eph. 5:25) For it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
And remember, you started this exchange by provocatively exaltation your church, maybe to get an indulgence (which you never denied) even though, as before, your parroting of prevaricating propaganda is an argument against being a Catholic. .
There aren't...It's all in your mind...
God desires unity of His followers to believe in His revealed Truth and accept His love for us, but allows each person with their ‘free will’ to either choose God and follow His way or reject God and follow the ways of the world. Often it is easier to do ‘our will’ and not God’s will.
We know what God's will is...It is to believe on the name of Jesus Christ and be saved...As far as the church instruction manual is concerned, we have that too...It's called the Bible...
Churches are supposed to lead us to God, share God’s Truth and to help sinners repent, do penance and do God’s will. Do they? Or do they give us false promises (man’s truth), false information and not God’s Truth? Yes, they may quote verses and parables from the Bible and share some of God’s teachings, but do they make false promises about salvation? Do they make false promises that ‘faith alone’ is all that is needed?
Well no they/we don't make false promises...They simply teach the mysteries of the church (which are no longer mysteries) that were revealed to the apostle Paul for knowledge and instruction FOR THE CHURCES...
Are protestant churches based on man’s doctrines and not God’s Truth, based on heresy and rejecting the Church that Jesus founded?
What??? Of course not...It is not man's doctrine that church overseers CAN NOT be single, unwed men without families...That's God's doctrine...It's not man's doctrine that church overseers DO NOT prance around in long, colorful robes (which make them stand out from the crowd as someone 'religious'), that's God's doctrine...
And it's not man's doctrine that says Jesus paid the FULL PRICE for our sin because we could not keep the law, that's God's doctrine...
Gal_3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
That's not a Protestant man doctrine...That's a God doctrine...That's a DOCTRINE that the apostle Paul brought to the churches FROM Jesus Christ...
1Ti_4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
Huh??? What doctrine??? Where do we get that doctrine??? Did Paul mean the doctrine of the Catholic Church Catechism??? Did Paul mean the doctrine of the traditions that were never known and never recorded but somehow exposed by the Catholic religion over the next numerous Centuries??? That religion that thumbs its nose at BIBLE DOCTRINE??? Of course not...
2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Uh, that is scripture, like as in the Bible...The Bible says to use the Bible for doctrine, and to correct any who get their doctrine from other than scripture...
As true followers of Christ, we need to accept God’s Truth and His love as a community of followers, The Body of Christ, members of Christ’s true church with our love for God and neighbor.
So what is Christ's true church??? Those who show up at a Catholic church and eat a wafer or is it those who have trusted and asked Jesus to be their Saviour???