Protestants United On Clear Essentials?

It is a common Catholic talking point that there seems to be no essential definition of Protestantism. It reduces to a kind of relativism, thus demonstrating the need for a magisterium. And the common reply is something like, "We are united in those doctrines necessary for salvation" or that "We are united on the obvious doctrines". Sometimes you hear "The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things." 

It doesn't escape the issue being pressed. You ask different Protestants what's necessary for salvation and you'll get different answers. "Believe in Jesus." But which Jesus? The Jesus of Mormonism? I think not. "Sola Fide." Okay, does that include baptism being necessary for salvation? Protestants will disagree on that. Which is exactly the problem we're trying to highlight. 

What of the "obvious" or "clear" issues like the Nicene Creed? Or the Trinity? Obviously you can't be Christian and deny those. But why are they obvious? It seems to be a matter of historical accident. They are obvious to us now, but they weren't obvious then. They are obvious to us now because the Catholic Church has debates at the councils on the subject matter, and their authority made it normative, and so we take for granted the need for a magisterium to make doctrines obvious, once again, highlighting our point. 

For example, we kind of take for granted that Jesus is God. Seems like an obvious Christian belief. But at the time of Arius and the Council of Nicaea, this wasn't obvious at all. 

So, the issue remains. You need a magisterium, and the Catholic Church is the only game in town. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe...
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is...
Read more