Dear non-denominational Christian friend:
Please don't take offense, but take this seriously.
If you insist on being saved strictly by Christ alone, with no men in the mix needed other than Christ, then why do you insist on being part of a "Bible-based church"?
The infallible, God-breathed #Bible itself was penned by fallible, sinful men, not Jesus. The leatherbound collection of scriptures in your hand is not Jesus (it came off a printing press!), yet you call it (rightly) the Word of God, a title referring to Jesus -- the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
So if you believe God can use mere men to write the Bible -- and that he used other men to compile it, to tell us which books comprise it, to tell us that the collection is infallible, and to preserve it through the centuries -- then how can you say we do not need men? Especially when you have human teachers in your churches.
You don't really believe what you're saying.
You just feel compelled to say, "Catholic bad."
Because you have to.
Replies (6)
It doesn’t take too much interrogation of Sola scriptura until it quickly falls apart
Yes, especially considering that the doctrine of sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible itself. It is self-refuting.
It's a hard truth I had to accept. It's not easy when that's the tradition you've always been taught.
The more I learn about church history the less I understand why anyone would want to belong to a non denominational church.
Hard to read 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and think the bible is all that you need.
Yes, that is an explicit one, that verse. Clear as day. All Bible-believing Christians need to accept that verse, too.
I can't believe I've never seen that one used as a defense of Catholicism. God bless, that's based.
In my experience people always jump to saying that Catholics misunderstand the "...on this rock," verse.
Yeah, but even then it makes more sense to go to a mainline protestant church that has the traditions and institution. Unity is very important to the church, and being non-denominational seems like an unjustified schism (not that other schisms were necessarily justified).
