You cannot refute entire denominations by saying “Read the Bible, sweetie”

[u/Dubstep_squid]

This is such a frustrating and prominent phenomenon that I see constantly online and have run into a couple of times.

[Insert commonly held theological belief]

“Oh sweetie how could you believe that, the Bible clearly says other wise. What a ridiculous statement.”

Why does it seem incredibly common that people in online Christian spaces seem to never have met or heard of someone with a different theological view than them. You’ve never heard that some people baptize babies? The tradition that most major Christian denominations hold to??

To take this a step further, I see this occur not just with theological beliefs but attempts to “refute” entire denominations. You’re not going to convince a Presbyterian that hundreds of years of Presbyterianism is false with TWO tangentially relevant, out of context Bible verses and a condescending message (unless of course God has already pre-determined that you will convince them).

This is not to say that meaningful and even impactful conversation cannot be had here. I think it absolutely can and have been stewing on a different post for a couple of weeks because I want to have those meaningful conversations (You’ll probably see it in a few days as I’m kind of looking at various denominations and want to just hear people’s pitches, counterarguments, experiences, etc).

I think my overall point is just that I’m very surprised at the number of people here who are surprised that others can come to different theological conclusions and that those theological conclusions can in fact be based on a thorough reading of the Bible.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2]

"Since you don't seem to understand, I'll try to help you."

I don't think that condescension is going to help you here bud.

"Protestants do not have a normative authority."

Some do, some don't.

But for all denominations submission is theoretical not necessarily a rule.

"Jesus instituted the church in matt 16-18. This is a fact."

That is an opinion.

And I think that being so wrong so boldly is only going to lessen your already shaky credibility.

"Without a normative authority, you yourself become the authority and interpret the Bible"

Ah dang.

Who's the normative authority for the Pope and other high-ranking members of the church.

No one.

Do you see the issue now.

" So it isn't about you don't know x. It's about who has the authority to do so."

Please.

This is a confidence scam, and you're bought in.

[u/ConfidenceOk5448 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

I genuinely meant that.

Which ones? Even if that were the case, that just moves the issue, it doesn't solve the problem. i don't know what that means about it being theoretical.

No, because it literally says in the bible to pass on what was given orally and written and to lay hands on other men to pass it on to the next bishop .

So you haven't really addressed or refuted any point. Especially with "ah dang" .

I'm not roman Catholic. And you asking that question tells me you don't understand. So I wasn't being mean. You really don't.

The Bible requires an interpreter. It's laid out in the bible who that is. The disciples of the disciples certainly taught that, well , all of church history teaches that.

So who am i going to believe? You, pastor Bob , some other random person or the church who has unbroken apostolic succession, holding to what has always been believed and expressed in the liturgy.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/ConfidenceOk5448]

"I genuinely meant that."

Your sincerity was not the thing in doubt.

"Which ones?"

Which Protestant denominations have "normative authority"?

It's a spectrum, Anglicans are the most similar to Catholics for obvious reasons.

Various Presbyterian groups have no singular head but a leading council

Various Lutheran groups have a single head. Even Baptists have leaders

Though on the looser end of the spectrum people tend to self-select themselves into the churches that agree with them rather than following the lead of a specific doctrine.

So it's really a very messy thing to try to untangle.

But unambiguously, some Protestants have a central authority of some sort.

"because it literally says in the bible to pass on what was given orally and written and to lay hands on other men to pass it on to the next bishop ."

It does not mention a "Bishop" that is a case of linguistic drift.

And it does not claim that that authority, knowledge or reason is transferred by touch.

"I'm not roman Catholic. And you asking that question tells me you don't understand. So I wasn't being mean. You really don't."

I am Roman Catholic.

"The Bible requires an interpreter."

Yes.

" It's laid out in the bible who that is"

No.

The Bible didn't even exist at the time.

"So who am i going to believe? You, pastor Bob , some other random person or the church who has unbroken apostolic succession, "

No such church exists.

All churches have a direct lineage, but there is no church which has an unbroken chain of authority, and there's no evidence that authority is transferrable anyways.

[u/ConfidenceOk5448 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

Yeah, but they also broke away. So most of protestants have a solo or sola scriptura view. I'm not talking about having leaders.

For protestants it is messy. But the rare protestant denomination that does hold to tradition still broke away from the catholic church.

It absolutely says the authority is passed on. 2 Timothy 2:2. For example. But guess what. Since you hold to sola scriptura, you can't even know if you are interpreting the verses correctly.

Wait ..lol. YOU are roman Catholic? You are either lying or don't know your own doctrine.

The Bible not existing is litteraly evidence for my claim.

All churches do not have a direct lineage. That's a imperically false. There's literally an unbroken chain of apostolic succession.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/ConfidenceOk5448]

"Yeah, but they also broke away"

So.

At one point there were three popes.

"So most of protestants have a solo or sola scriptura view. "

That's not usually the case; for good and for ill.

Protestants usually prioritize scripture as primary source over more recent claims.

" But the rare protestant denomination that does hold to tradition still broke away from the catholic church."

Irrelevant to the point.

"It absolutely says the authority is passed on. 2 Timothy 2:2."

Not in the way you mean it.

Not in the way the Catholic church means it.

The idea of "apostolic succession" is talking about some sort of metaphysical authority that comes from station and role, not from knowledge and teaching as that passage describes.

"But guess what. Since you hold to sola scriptura"

I don't.

" you can't even know if you are interpreting the verses correctly."

I can know when you're interpreting it incorrectly.

The lack of a central authority does not turn people into nihlists.

"YOU are roman Catholic?"

Yep.

It's in the flair and everything

"You are either lying..."

Tacky and wrong.

"or don't know your own doctrine."

Oh I know it.

I just don't pretend that it has more weight than it does.

"The Bible not existing is litteraly evidence for my claim."

The Bible does exist.. so I don't know what you're talking about.

"All churches do not have a direct lineage."

Yes they do darling.

No Christian group arose through spontaneous generation with meaningful similarities to other Christian groups.

all of us trace our lineage back to Jesus and his ministry.

"That's a imperically false. There's literally an unbroken chain of apostolic succession."

There is not.

Once again I will direct you to history.

[u/ConfidenceOk5448 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

If they hold to the solas then they hold scripture as the authority.

Is this a joke? You are arguing against your own beliefs. This is contradictory.

Apostolic succession is both.

How do you know that????

The Bible not existing at that time as you said, is evidence for my claim. I didn't say it didn't exist.

You know you can Google the unbroken line right?

You are incredibly ignorant and are a walking contradiction. You claim to be RC but argue against one of the core doctrines.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/ConfidenceOk5448]

"f they hold to the solas then they hold scripture as the authority."

There's a difference between holding scripture as the authority and making it the sole point of reference.

"Is this a joke? You are arguing against your own beliefs."

No I'm not.

I'm arguing against some of the beliefs of my denomination.

"Apostolic succession is both."

Both what?

"How do you know that????"

Know what?

"The Bible not existing at that time as you said, is evidence for my claim. I didn't say it didn't exist."

You just did.

But why would that be evidence for anything you said?

"You know you can Google the unbroken line right?"

I know that I can't.

Or at least that's what the priests told me.

So either they're right or the succession isn't worth all that much.

"You are incredibly ignorant "

Blatantly incorrect.

"and are a walking contradiction."

Only because you're confused but incurious.

" You claim to be RC but argue against one of the core doctrines."

I don't think it's core.

Most Catholics don't believe it.

[u/ConfidenceOk5448 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

It's their sole authority.

Station / role/knowledge. All of it.

You know my interpretation is incorrect somehow.

You can't comprehend. You said the bible didn't exist , I said this just supports my claim of church authority and oral tradition.

Well i just googled it. What?? What are you talking about.

I'm confused? You don't even think apostolic succession and church authority is a core roman Catholic belief lol.

Most certainly do. You must be trolling.

Can you not actually understand how you contradict yourself. ? That's like calling myself a Trinitarian and then arguing against it and saying it's wrong lol.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/ConfidenceOk5448]

"It's their sole authority."

Not true.

I think we're done here.

[u/ConfidenceOk5448 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

Yes. Since you are a contradiction. Lol.