KingofHazor said:Quote:
Having left the Baptist world, the origin of Sola scriptura is different than the modern day usage of it. But if the misunderstanding of it is so great that each non-denominational or Baptist church body functionally follows what Thaddeus posted (as individuals inside the body) then that's what matters. Not who their pastor quotes or originally relied on. It's a feature, not a bug.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you claiming that all RCC and EO members always accurately summarize the beliefs of those faiths? I've known many from both faiths whose statements would likely make you blush. Contrary to your point, one of the great influences in my parents' faith was an older Greek gentleman, who grew up Orthodox, and left it for Protestantism for many reasons, not the least of which was the deadness in the EO. You guys are comparing the Baptist denomination, which has been acculturated here in the US, to the EO which is new and relatively vibrant in the US. The EO in countries where it has existed for centuries is considerably different than what you experience here.
Also, your experience at one or a few Baptist churches doesn't represent what Protestantism generally believes. Nor do Baptists collectively speak for all Protestants.
But to some extent you're right. Individual choice in beliefs is a feature of Protestantism and is one of its great appeals and strengths. Protestantism allows for reform when error and corruption creeps into Christ's church. The RCC and EO are designed to prevent reform, claiming against all evidence that no error has crept into those institutions. (And, despite your and the RCC claims to the contrary, you also make that individual choice. You chose to leave the Baptist church and join the EO. You decided that EO doctrine is more in alignment than Baptist doctrine. So to what extent are you any different than Protestants?)
Finally, why do you guys spend so much time and make so many posts criticizing Protestantism? Don't we all have a greater, common foe? What do you hope to accomplish by incessantly criticizing others who follow Christ as both Savior and Lord?
You're right, you don't understand. My comment has nothing to do with the RCC or EO, or anyone else. It is just to say, a process is what it does.
We can talk about what Luther meant, and everyone that followed him: that's not a problem. But that's what it means to you, which is the greater point. Church and individual autonomy is highly important in Baptist non-denom circles (though that's changing as culture changes and the need for foundation is gaining importance).
Each person picks and chooses their own cultural reference point and historical figures, much as they choose who disciples them or the small group they're part of. The multiplicity of choice is important to the denomination. You can't bind anyone up with the people you refer to; it's lowest common denominator Christianity and it's intentional.
None of this is meant as an insult, so much as a description. Historical figures and understanding are only rewarded so much as a pastor or Sunday school teacher or pew sitter believe them to be. Sure, Martin Luther meant something totally different. Sure, the men you quoted discuss it at length. And there's a modern cultural movement to recapture Christian disciplines that have been jettisoned through time (though not all accidentally). But it just kind of is, as an idea and concept, and you can't put it back in the box. So since it isn't practiced the way you describe it, it's not an unfair criticism.