https://www.allaboutbaptists.com/history_John_Smyth.html


The 17th Century founding of the Baptist Church...

Not familiar with this puritan, probably for obvious reasons.

Doing some googling myself.

Quote:

---

He eventually rejected the doctrine of original sin and asserted the right of every Christian to hold his own religious views.

---

Yikes, if true

https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Smyth

I study religious history a lot, especially the early church fathers, who wrote it all down for us. I ran across this and found it interesting....Holland? Oh well...

Had never heard of someone baptizing themselves

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Not familiar with this puritan, probably for obvious reasons.

Doing some googling myself.

Quote:

---

He eventually rejected the doctrine of original sin and asserted the right of every Christian to hold his own religious views.

---

Yikes, if true

https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Smyth

---

There are a number of famous theologians who reject the idea of original sin. Especially as far as resulting in total depravity.
Google famous theologians who rejected the doctrine of original sin if you are interested.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Not familiar with this puritan, probably for obvious reasons.

Doing some googling myself.

Quote:

---

He eventually rejected the doctrine of original sin and asserted the right of every Christian to hold his own religious views.

---

Yikes, if true

https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Smyth

---

There are a number of famous theologians who reject the idea of original sin. Especially as far as resulting in total depravity.
Google famous theologians who rejected the doctrine of original sin if you are interested.

---

True. I will not pretend to speak for my Orthodox brethren, but I am fairly sure their concept of what the Catholic Church calls original sin is also a bit different than the typical concept of original sin.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think that is a stretch, we should all be under some type of Biblical authority, not just doing whatever seems right in our own eyes (see the whole book of Judges). Sola Scriptura is not teaching that. It is teaching Scripture as the ultimate authority and should guide all of life, both within the church and in our own family and personal lives.

---

It sounds plausible, but in practice, it can't actually work. In the protestant denominations, the individual is tasked with personally determining whether or not their particular church's doctrines line up with the bible. If the individual is judging the church, then they are not actually subject to any authority outside of what physically happens inside the church grounds.

In the Catholic tradition, that doesn't happen. While an individual may not be able to avoid judging their priest's homily against the bible and/or church teaching, it's not supposed to stop there. If the individual is troubled, they are supposed to take it to the bishop, not rest on private interpretation. It can elevate from there even, but if the process eventually ends in "your personal interpretation is wrong", then your personal interpretation is wrong.

If I were troubled by my pastor's sermon, I would take it to the elders

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If I were troubled by my pastor's sermon, I would take it to the elders

---

I'm sure you would. But if they told you that your interpretation on a certain teaching or doctrine was wrong, would that truly satisfy you? If you thought their decision to be contrary to the bible, would you submit to their decision?

The way churches have split over and over again suggests that, even if you would personally submit, most won't. We're watching it in real time with all the LGBT/woman pastor stuff. Ecclesial authorities are making "authoritative" decisions, and those that were supposedly in communion/submission to said decisions leave because they disagree.

I am supposed to submit to the elders, so unless it was some kind of a major/primary issue (highly doubtful) I would leave it alone.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am supposed to submit to the elders, so unless it was some kind of a major/primary issue (highly doubtful) I would leave it alone.

---

Do you see how that potentially unlikely issue still places you outside of any real theological/doctrinal authority? There is still a place reserved for you to be the authority over them if a conflict arises.

Confessions and Creeds the church would had already agreed or aligned to

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think that is a stretch, we should all be under some type of Biblical authority, not just doing whatever seems right in our own eyes (see the whole book of Judges). Sola Scriptura is not teaching that. It is teaching Scripture as the ultimate authority and should guide all of life, both within the church and in our own family and personal lives.

---

Where does the Bible say we should all be under some type of biblical authority?

---

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

1 Corinthians 16:1518
Now I urge you, brothersyou know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence, for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. Give recognition to such people.

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think that is a stretch, we should all be under some type of Biblical authority, not just doing whatever seems right in our own eyes (see the whole book of Judges). Sola Scriptura is not teaching that. It is teaching Scripture as the ultimate authority and should guide all of life, both within the church and in our own family and personal lives.

---

Where does the Bible say we should all be under some type of biblical authority?

---

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

1 Corinthians 16:1518
Now I urge you, brothersyou know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence, for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. Give recognition to such people.

1 Thessalonians 5:1213
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.

---

You have cited passages that stand for the proposition that certain people referred to as "elders? are to be obeyed. That is plainly obvious .

But who are these leaders and elders? How are they to be determined? What is their authority and does scripture teach that their authority includes the divinely protected power to declare dogmas and doctrines? If so, how do we know them and identify their authority? [please use only scripture for your answers].

The word translated as "elder" in 1 Peter 5:5 is the Greek (presbuteros, pronounced pres-boo'-ter-os). Presbuteros referred to men who were older or more senior, carrying no negative connotations but rather a sense of venerability. The basic literal meaning is "pertaining to being relatively advanced in age, older, old" and from this it came to be used as the title of an official: elder or presbyter.

Among Christians, presbuteros referred to those who presided over the assemblies (or churches). These were men of "ripe age" and experience to whom was committed the direction and government of individual churches.

The English word "priest" comes directly from the Greek word presbyteros. Presbuteros is transliterated into English as "presbyter," and from this through Late Latin presbyter the word "priest" was ultimately derived.
Presbyteros is the title Saint Peter himself prefers. This is no accident. When Peter calls himself a sympresbyteros (fellow-elder) in 1 Peter 5:1, he is linking his apostolic authority with the role of the ordained leader the one who shepherds, serves, and leads by example.

Being an elder exercising oversight means accepting responsibility the elder who is an overseer of the local church is to provide leadership as well as protection, like a shepherd would do for a flock of sheep.

So when Peter instructs the younger members to be subject to the presbuteroi in 1 Peter 5:5, he is not merely invoking seniority. He is pointing to a divinely ordered structure of authority and care within the Church.

Let's go further.

The Greek term for bishop is (episkopos, pronounced ep-IS-kop-os). The term "bishop" comes from the Greek word episkopos (), which means overseer, superintendent, supervisor, or foreman.

Episkopos is made up of a prefix epi and a root scopus. The English word "scope" comes from this root, which refers to an instrument used to look at things. The prefix epi serves to intensify a root, for example, there is knowledge (gnosis) and profound knowledge (epignosis); there is desire (thumia) and passionate desire (epithumia). An episkopos, therefore, is a person who looks at something intensely.

There are six direct mentions of episkopos in the New Testament: Acts 1:2026, Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:7, and 1 Peter 2:25. Deemed God's "steward," "overseer," and "shepherd," the "guardian of souls," the bishop represents the elder and learned leadership of developing early church communities.

In the early Church, the word episkopos was not always clearly distinguished from presbyteros.
The references to bishops in the New Testament are tied to early Christian leadership roles, often interchangeable with "elders" (presbuteros) in some contexts, reflecting the developing church structure.
Over time, however, the two terms took on distinct meanings, and the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, developed the threefold order of holy orders: bishop (episkopos), priest (presbyteros), and deacon (diakonos).

Bishops are called "bishop" because they are the overseers of the flock of God, called to visit the sick, the imprisoned, the hungry, and to bear the care of the people of God.

In 1 Peter 2:25, Christ Himself is called the episkopos, the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls, making every earthly bishop a participation in Christ's own shepherding mission.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Not familiar with this puritan, probably for obvious reasons.

Doing some googling myself.

Quote:

---

He eventually rejected the doctrine of original sin and asserted the right of every Christian to hold his own religious views.

---

Yikes, if true

https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Smyth

---

There are a number of famous theologians who reject the idea of original sin. Especially as far as resulting in total depravity.
Google famous theologians who rejected the doctrine of original sin if you are interested.

---

True. I will not pretend to speak for my Orthodox brethren, but I am fairly sure their concept of what the Catholic Church calls original sin is also a bit different than the typical concept of original sin.

---

You guys are much closer with each other than we are to the Roman Church on this matter.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think that is a stretch, we should all be under some type of Biblical authority, not just doing whatever seems right in our own eyes (see the whole book of Judges). Sola Scriptura is not teaching that. It is teaching Scripture as the ultimate authority and should guide all of life, both within the church and in our own family and personal lives.

---

It sounds plausible, but in practice, it can't actually work. In the protestant denominations, the individual is tasked with personally determining whether or not their particular church's doctrines line up with the bible. If the individual is judging the church, then they are not actually subject to any authority outside of what physically happens inside the church grounds.

In the Catholic tradition, that doesn't happen. While an individual may not be able to avoid judging their priest's homily against the bible and/or church teaching, it's not supposed to stop there. If the individual is troubled, they are supposed to take it to the bishop, not rest on private interpretation. It can elevate from there even, but if the process eventually ends in "your personal interpretation is wrong", then your personal interpretation is wrong.

---

I hope not to offend, but this simply does not hold in most cities. There is a diversity of worship inside the Roman church and people attend their preference just like any other church (Latin or no, even different NOs). I've seen multiple groups (conservative and liberal) have their own services outside the church when they were unhappy (at an all faiths chapel at a hospital, for instance, with someone there to administer sacraments).

There's a reason so many orders exist inside the Catholic Church despite its 'unity'.

---

I'm not sure how liturgical differences have anything to do with Sola Scriptura. The issue with sola scriptura is a theological/doctrinal differences with no way to reconcile them. It has nothing to do with liturgical differences, which have existed since the beginning of Christianity.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think that is a stretch, we should all be under some type of Biblical authority, not just doing whatever seems right in our own eyes (see the whole book of Judges). Sola Scriptura is not teaching that. It is teaching Scripture as the ultimate authority and should guide all of life, both within the church and in our own family and personal lives.

---

It sounds plausible, but in practice, it can't actually work. In the protestant denominations, the individual is tasked with personally determining whether or not their particular church's doctrines line up with the bible. If the individual is judging the church, then they are not actually subject to any authority outside of what physically happens inside the church grounds.

In the Catholic tradition, that doesn't happen. While an individual may not be able to avoid judging their priest's homily against the bible and/or church teaching, it's not supposed to stop there. If the individual is troubled, they are supposed to take it to the bishop, not rest on private interpretation. It can elevate from there even, but if the process eventually ends in "your personal interpretation is wrong", then your personal interpretation is wrong.

---

I hope not to offend, but this simply does not hold in most cities. There is a diversity of worship inside the Roman church and people attend their preference just like any other church (Latin or no, even different NOs). I've seen multiple groups (conservative and liberal) have their own services outside the church when they were unhappy (at an all faiths chapel at a hospital, for instance, with someone there to administer sacraments).

There's a reason so many orders exist inside the Catholic Church despite its 'unity'.

---

I'm not sure how liturgical differences have anything to do with Sola Scriptura. The issue with sola scriptura is a theological/doctrinal differences with no way to reconcile them. It has nothing to do with liturgical differences, which have existed since the beginning of Christianity.

---

I'm telling you the average Roman catholic still gets to decide what they like and who they want to follow. Rolling authority up to someone so far above them that they'll never meet isn't the trump card it's presented as; the diversity of teaching and debates over orthodoxy within the RCC are alive and well and play out here all the time. Is Pablo headed to Latin mass because he submits to the pope? Would you go to father Martin's church if it was the closest? The answer in both cases is no, because the modern Roman exercises the exact same judgment. It's simply inescapable on our culture. The orthodox are similarly afflicted in large cities. Unless your denomination only has one place of worship in a city, we all do this.

Liturgical preference has nothing to do with the Sola Scriptura debate. Whether someone prefers the Latin Mass or the NO, he remains under the same bishop, the same Magisterium, and the same pope. Both parishes teach identical doctrine on justification, the sacraments, and Scripture. His choice affects his experience, not the authority structure.

That's the key difference. Two Protestant congregations in the same city can (and routinely do) hold flatly contradictory teachings on baptism, the Eucharist, or other doctrines with no binding mechanism to resolve it. That cannot happen between two Catholic parishes in communion with Rome.

The existence of liturgical diversity, religious orders, or even dissenting Catholics doesn't disprove the structure, any more than lawbreakers disprove the existence of law. "Catholics do it too" is simply a tu quoque. Even if many Catholics ignored Rome, that wouldn't fix Sola Scriptura's core problem: under it, the individual's interpretation of Scripture is always the final court of appeal. Catholicism has a living authority that can make binding determinations. Sola Scriptura, by design, does not.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Srby said:

---

the individual's interpretation of Scripture is always the final court of appeal

---

This isn't really how it works or how it is viewed in "orthodox" or true/classic Protestantism. I understand there is indeed a lack of institutional hierarchy, but it isn't and shouldn't just be the wild west. There are most definitely and should be checks and balances, even if they are less defined.

I will again beat the drum that lumping all Christians into the Protestant bucket if they are not of Rome or the East is going to make it look like a complete dumpster fire.

---

We only do it because it is true once sola scriptura is set into practice. If you believe you are capable of judging whether or not your church's doctrines align with the bible, then they aren't actually your authority.

For any protestant who has done a theological deep dive to choose their church, this is what usually happens. You came to what you believe to be a correct understanding of scripture, then aligned yourself with a group of people who share your understanding. Even when investigating the Church Fathers, it's done with a set of predetermined theological principles, and the texts are read that way. Gavin Ortlund and Wes Huff are the most prominent ones who do this.

When one reads Church history/Church Fathers as historical text, rather than theological, it becomes very clear that there was an authoritative Church that was claiming authority based on apostolic succession. That Church didn't go anywhere. So rather than trying to figure out theology for myself and see if I agree with every point the Church teaches, I should be working on getting myself in union with that Church.

Srby said:

---

Liturgical preference has nothing to do with the Sola Scriptura debate. Whether someone prefers the Latin Mass or the NO, he remains under the same bishop, the same Magisterium, and the same pope. Both parishes teach identical doctrine on justification, the sacraments, and Scripture. His choice affects his experience, not the authority structure.

That's the key difference. Two Protestant congregations in the same city can (and routinely do) hold flatly contradictory teachings on baptism, the Eucharist, or other doctrines with no binding mechanism to resolve it. That cannot happen between two Catholic parishes in communion with Rome.

The existence of liturgical diversity, religious orders, or even dissenting Catholics doesn't disprove the structure, any more than lawbreakers disprove the existence of law. "Catholics do it too" is simply a tu quoque. Even if many Catholics ignored Rome, that wouldn't fix Sola Scriptura's core problem: under it, the individual's interpretation of Scripture is always the final court of appeal. Catholicism has a living authority that can make binding determinations. Sola Scriptura, by design, does not.

---

It's a nice thought but father Martin wasn't a red herring in my response. He shares the same pope. Theres another thread in this same forum discussing Sspx if you find that more true to the argument. Theres a reason there are old Catholics. If Nancy Pelosi can receive communion in one parish but not another, and the teaching is the same, what is the teaching? Does authority matter if German bishops bless and offer the sacrament to unrepentant sinners? So you don't offer different teachings, you just interpret it in completely contradictory ways. This, then, is somehow better?

Well said. I appreciated the "batting 1.000" comment.

AGC said:

---

Srby said:

---

Liturgical preference has nothing to do with the Sola Scriptura debate. Whether someone prefers the Latin Mass or the NO, he remains under the same bishop, the same Magisterium, and the same pope. Both parishes teach identical doctrine on justification, the sacraments, and Scripture. His choice affects his experience, not the authority structure.

That's the key difference. Two Protestant congregations in the same city can (and routinely do) hold flatly contradictory teachings on baptism, the Eucharist, or other doctrines with no binding mechanism to resolve it. That cannot happen between two Catholic parishes in communion with Rome.

The existence of liturgical diversity, religious orders, or even dissenting Catholics doesn't disprove the structure, any more than lawbreakers disprove the existence of law. "Catholics do it too" is simply a tu quoque. Even if many Catholics ignored Rome, that wouldn't fix Sola Scriptura's core problem: under it, the individual's interpretation of Scripture is always the final court of appeal. Catholicism has a living authority that can make binding determinations. Sola Scriptura, by design, does not.

---

It's a nice thought but father Martin wasn't a red herring in my response. He shares the same pope. Theres another thread in this same forum discussing Sspx if you find that more true to the argument. Theres a reason there are old Catholics. If Nancy Pelosi can receive communion in one parish but not another, and the teaching is the same, what is the teaching? Does authority matter if German bishops bless and offer the sacrament to unrepentant sinners? So you don't offer different teachings, you just interpret it in completely contradictory ways. This, then, is somehow better?

---

This is still a tu quoque. The claim isn't that Catholics have perfected the process or that scandals don't exist, it's that Sola Scriptura has no principled way to avoid these problems when taken to its logical conclusion.

On the Pelosi example specifically: the teaching is not in dispute. Canon 915 is clear that ministers are not to administer communion to those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. What varies is enforcement by individual ministers. That's a failure of discipline, not a contradiction in doctrine. Two Catholic parishes don't hold opposite teachings on who may receive; some priests simply fail to apply the one teaching correctly. Contrast that with Sola Scriptura, where two congregations can hold flatly contradictory doctrines (on baptism, the Eucharist, justification) with no common rule to even appeal to. That's a categorical difference.

On the German bishops: they were formally corrected by the Magisterium on the blessings issue, the living authority did act. Whether every bishop fully complies is a failure of obedience, not a failure of the structure. Persistent defiance can and has led to discipline or excommunication.

Just as a bad president doesn't make the presidency the wrong form of government, a bad pope, weak bishops, or scandals throughout 2000 years of Church history don't invalidate the institution. And someone not in communion with Rome (SSPX, Old Catholics) is by definition no longer functioning within Catholic authority, so those examples don't actually test the structure they're meant to critique.

None of this fixes Sola Scriptura's core problem: under it, the individual's interpretation of Scripture is always the final court of appeal. Catholicism has a living authority that can make binding determinations. Sola Scriptura, by design, does not. When Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 18 to bring disputes to the Church and treat her judgment as binding, binding as heaven itself, that requires a Church with real, visible authority. Not one where the final say always rests with the individual believer.

Srby said:

---

AGC said:

---

Srby said:

---

Liturgical preference has nothing to do with the Sola Scriptura debate. Whether someone prefers the Latin Mass or the NO, he remains under the same bishop, the same Magisterium, and the same pope. Both parishes teach identical doctrine on justification, the sacraments, and Scripture. His choice affects his experience, not the authority structure.

That's the key difference. Two Protestant congregations in the same city can (and routinely do) hold flatly contradictory teachings on baptism, the Eucharist, or other doctrines with no binding mechanism to resolve it. That cannot happen between two Catholic parishes in communion with Rome.

The existence of liturgical diversity, religious orders, or even dissenting Catholics doesn't disprove the structure, any more than lawbreakers disprove the existence of law. "Catholics do it too" is simply a tu quoque. Even if many Catholics ignored Rome, that wouldn't fix Sola Scriptura's core problem: under it, the individual's interpretation of Scripture is always the final court of appeal. Catholicism has a living authority that can make binding determinations. Sola Scriptura, by design, does not.

---

It's a nice thought but father Martin wasn't a red herring in my response. He shares the same pope. Theres another thread in this same forum discussing Sspx if you find that more true to the argument. Theres a reason there are old Catholics. If Nancy Pelosi can receive communion in one parish but not another, and the teaching is the same, what is the teaching? Does authority matter if German bishops bless and offer the sacrament to unrepentant sinners? So you don't offer different teachings, you just interpret it in completely contradictory ways. This, then, is somehow better?

---

This is still a tu quoque. The claim isn't that Catholics have perfected the process or that scandals don't exist, it's that Sola Scriptura has no principled way to avoid these problems when taken to its logical conclusion.

On the Pelosi example specifically: the teaching is not in dispute. Canon 915 is clear that ministers are not to administer communion to those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. What varies is enforcement by individual ministers. That's a failure of discipline, not a contradiction in doctrine. Two Catholic parishes don't hold opposite teachings on who may receive; some priests simply fail to apply the one teaching correctly. Contrast that with Sola Scriptura, where two congregations can hold flatly contradictory doctrines (on baptism, the Eucharist, justification) with no common rule to even appeal to. That's a categorical difference.

On the German bishops: they were formally corrected by the Magisterium on the blessings issue, the living authority did act. Whether every bishop fully complies is a failure of obedience, not a failure of the structure. Persistent defiance can and has led to discipline or excommunication.

Just as a bad president doesn't make the presidency the wrong form of government, a bad pope, weak bishops, or scandals throughout 2000 years of Church history don't invalidate the institution. And someone not in communion with Rome (SSPX, Old Catholics) is by definition no longer functioning within Catholic authority, so those examples don't actually test the structure they're meant to critique.

None of this fixes Sola Scriptura's core problem: under it, the individual's interpretation of Scripture is always the final court of appeal. Catholicism has a living authority that can make binding determinations. Sola Scriptura, by design, does not. When Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 18 to bring disputes to the Church and treat her judgment as binding, binding as heaven itself, that requires a Church with real, visible authority. Not one where the final say always rests with the individual believer.

---

It's not different, nor is the argument tu quoque in my framing or mind (it's not about the hypocrisy of leadership).

Romans pick and choose which church to worship at based on their own interpretation as much as anyone else. It's why someone winds up at father Martin's instead of the local Latin mass. It's entirely a choice based on what they think. If they saw no difference in teaching they'd not care to pick and choose. Infinite missives and canons do not impact the choices they make when they disagree with a priest. It's a marketplace for everyone unless you live in a small town.

The problem with sola scriptura isn't the bible..It's that everyone becomes their own self-interpreter of what scripture means. If I said, "She's hot" without context, there are at least 3 or 4 different ways to interpret that statement - She's good looking, she has a fever, she's on a roll in Vegas, she's outside in August, etc...

Is the belief that Rome (and EO) is completely inerrant in their interpretation of the Bible?