The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

[Bugman]

The next question would be then; how do you know that the Church is allowed to make such creeds? The answer would eventually go back to Scripture, and/or Church tradition. One of which the indivual must interperate on his own to mean that the Church has such authority (or even as I have seen Matt begin to point out elsewhere; which Church is the correct Church). In the end I don't see how it is possible to get away from an initial private interperation of scripture which is faliable (meaning not nesscarly wrong, but also not necessarly right).

Bryan
SDG

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Bugman:
The next question would be then; how do you know that the Church is allowed to make such creeds?

History. The Church recognized which books constituted Scripture in the first place. I guess the Church can, by the same means it recognized which books are authentically apostolic (and thus inspired Scripture), also form authentic summaries of apostolic doctrine in the forms of creeds.

...which Church is the correct Church...

The one which compiled the Scriptures.

In the end I don't see how it is possible to get away from an initial private interperation of scripture which is faliable (meaning not nesscarly wrong, but also not necessarly right).

You're right--one can never entirely get away from subjective judgements of anything, as you point out. However, the Bible didn't just plop out of the sky but was given in a historical context. Christ Himself came and existed in a given time and locale, and likewise the Church started at a specific point in history and continues to exist in time and space. In fact, the church was established roughly 20 years before the first NT epistle was penned and provides a big part of the context for those NT writings. That's not merely a private interpretation, that's another historical fact. I guess what I'm getting at is that, although one can never excape subjective interpretations of anything entirely, one can come to a more sure epistemological footing with a hermeneutical spiral involving Scripture, Church and Tradition since all have existed in history (and thus open to investigation) and have mutually supported each other (which can be demonstrated historically as well). One still, afterall, must have faith which obviously has a subjective component to it.

 

[icthus]

Doubting Thomas, you said:

"But I don't think the Bible "ALONE" is our final authority. CHRIST is our final authority"

But, how do we know of the Authority of Jesus Christ if there is no Bible?

 

[Bugman]

. The Church recognized which books constituted Scripture in the first place.

I don't know if I would be willing to agree with that or not; depends on what you mean by it. I think Warfield had it write in his , which you may or may not agree with depending on what you ment by your comment.

I guess the Church can, by the same means it recognized which books are authentically apostolic (and thus inspired Scripture), also form authentic summaries of apostolic doctrine in the forms of creeds.

Is the Churches decision infaliable however? I would say no, but I would say Church tradition should play the largest role in interperating scripture next to scripture itself.

Bryan
SDG

 

[Eric B]

You're right--one can never entirely get away from subjective judgements of anything, as you point out. However, the Bible didn't just plop out of the sky but was given in a historical context. Christ Himself came and existed in a given time and locale, and likewise the Church started at a specific point in history and continues to exist in time and space. In fact, the church was established roughly 20 years before the first NT epistle was penned and provides a big part of the context for those NT writings. That's not merely a private interpretation, that's another historical fact. I guess what I'm getting at is that, although one can never excape subjective interpretations of anything entirely, one can come to a more sure epistemological footing with a hermeneutical spiral involving Scripture, Church and Tradition since all have existed in history (and thus open to investigation) and have mutually supported each other (which can be demonstrated historically as well). One still, afterall, must have faith which obviously has a subjective component to it.

I don't know; but "the Bible didn't just plop out of the sky but was given in a historical context" looks like a way of subjecting it to the Church. The only "context" the Bible was written in was the God-inspired men of the first century (for the NT) who wrote letters to congregations; or wrote down the acts of Jesus or the apostles. It is not the context of the second century or later; as all they were left to do was canonize the list of books, and then try to continue interpreting what was already written and handed down to them. But as I said before; God inspired the later leaders; in spite of themslves and the doctrinal developments they were then undergoing; to canonize the NT. That's why the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of the Birth of Mary are not in there; though they are true to "catholic tradition"; and I'm sure many would have loved to put them in there. So their interpretations God did not inspire. It ended with the canonization. The creeds also do not always clearly present the truth (the language of the Trinity for instance), and have been subject to disagreement --filioque, for instance. If one group thought it should be in there; and another didn't; how, using "church tradition" could we determine whether it was true? No; we just get one of our first schisms in this "united church"; with each side denouncing each other. --Just like your much repeated "Calvinism v. Arminianism; easy-believism v. "Lordship" salvation; sacraments v. merely symbolic "ordinances; infant v. adult only baptism; pre-, mid-, post-trib and/or pre-, post-, a-millenial; full preterism v. partial preterism v. futurism; Saturday v. Sunday worship; Jesus-Only v. Trinitarianism; Peter being supreme over the apostles/Church v. an being important apostle within the Church; etc." It would only take time for all of those other debates to develop, as people try to explain things more; or whatever. Whether the teaching comes up in a context of one powerful authority; or your "lone-ranger, just-me-and-Jesus-and-my-Bible", it has never mattered. (It was the one authority approach that became so corrupted that it led people to revolt and try the individual apporach. As I 've been saying; at least we can all pass the lone ranger by if he is talking nonsense!)

BTW, are you chrismated yet?

If I so misunderstand the EOC teaching on baptism and salvation; then will you explain it to me, at least as it realtes to the limbo you are in

, then?

 

[BobRyan]

DT said
Both the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition convey the orthodox teachings regarding the Trinity and Christ as opposed to the heretical interpretations of Scripture with their distorted views of God and Christ.

It is certainly "comforting" that early church councils interpreted the scriptures correctly on the subject of the Trinity.

HOWEVER - no Christian trinitarian denomination would USE the words from those councils as PROOF of the Trinity when PROVING the doctrine to non-Trinitarians!

We OBSERVE the external fact that OTHER christians ARE ALSO in AGREEMENT when reading those documents -- BUT THE DOCUMENTs are NOT the basis for Doctrine NOR are they in any way NEEDED to make the point about the Trinity with Arian Christians.

This is abundantly testified to by the noticing the number of Arians (like JW's) that convert to Baptist, Adventist and other Trinitarian groups via arguments made SOLA SCRIPTURA for the Trinity!!

I myself have participated in those discussions with Arian members and found the Bible evidence ALONE to be VERY effective in bringing them to the point of saying "that appears to be true from the scriptures - and I have no answer for that" when it comes to the subject of the Trinity.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by icthus:
Doubting Thomas, you said:

"But I don't think the Bible "ALONE" is our final authority. CHRIST is our final authority"

But, how do we know of the Authority of Jesus Christ if there is no Bible?

I'll let Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, answer that question:
"For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings ? Would it not be necessary, in that case, to follow the course of tradition which they handed down to those in whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies)

 

[Bugman]

But we are not in that situation; we have an infaliable Bible. Should we then trust tradition as much as we do trust the Bible?

Bryan
SDG

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
I don't know; but "the Bible didn't just plop out of the sky but was given in a historical context" looks like a way of subjecting it to the Church.

Really? I thought I was making a historically accurate observation. The books of the Bible were written over a thousand years, and it took a few more centuries before it was finally canonized. The Bible is not the Koran or the Book of Mormon, afterall. The birth of the Church preceded the writing of the NT (just as Israel preceded the existence of the Torah).

The only "context" the Bible was written in was the God-inspired men of the first century (for the NT) who wrote letters to congregations; or wrote down the acts of Jesus or the apostles.

And these congregations were personally established by the apostles and were taught the Truth for decades before the NT epistles were written to them. (It was even longer for those congregations that were not the direct recipients of the letters, etc) This is the context to which I'm referring.

But as I said before; God inspired the later leaders; in spite of themslves and the doctrinal developments they were then undergoing; to canonize the NT.

So if you can assume God "inspired the later leaders" to canonize the NT (300 years after the NT was written, BTW), why are you so quick to assert that these same fathers were interpreting the NT so badly (by your standard)? Why can't you believe that God might have possibly guided them in the correct interpretation (the rule of faith) of these Scriptures they canonized and that some of your interpretations just might be wrong? Otherwise, why do you just assume God must have inspired them to "get it right" about the 27 book NT canon, just because that happens to be the books that you have in your bible, when several of the books were disputed for centuries? Isn't it special pleading to believe God "inspired" them to canonize the right books yet discount the possibility that He guided this same Church in the correct unified interpretation of so many of Biblical doctrines that a divided Protestantism disagrees about today?

That's why the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of the Birth of Mary are not in there; though they are true to "catholic tradition"; and I'm sure many would have loved to put them in there. So their interpretations God did not inspire. It ended with the canonization.

Or because they could not actually traced back to the hand of an apostle (or an apostle's associate such as Mark or Luke) and were not used widely (if at all) in the Church's liturgy. I've never read either of those works to which you refer, so I can't vouch for how true they are to "catholic tradition". (Unless you were referring to the Protevangelium of James which I have read and which does give an account of Mary's birth. This work dates no earlier that the early 2nd century)

The creeds also do not always clearly present the truth (the language of the Trinity for instance), and have been subject to disagreement --filioque, for instance. If one group thought it should be in there; and another didn't; how, using "church tradition" could we determine whether it was true?

Since the Creed was originally written without the filique. The Filioque was the doctrinal novelty which didn't appear anywhere until the late 6th century at a local synod in Spain. As late as the ninth century the Pope of Rome agreed with the East (at a council at Constantinople) that the filioque was not to be in the Creed. At the turn of the millenium Rome "flip-flopped" and the rest is history.

(It was the one authority approach that became so corrupted that it led people to revolt and try the individual apporach.)

It against the Roman aberrations that the Protestants revolted.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Bugman:
But we are not in that situation; we have an infaliable Bible. Should we then trust tradition as much as we do trust the Bible?

Bryan
SDG

Paul, for one, commanded the church to keep the traditions, whether oral or his epistle (2 Thess 2:15) and neither he nor anyone else in Scripture put a time limit on that command (ie keep what was taught orally only until the "canon was closed"). And just how is it that we know that we have an "infallible Bible"? How do we know that we even have the right books to constitute that infallible Bible if not for the Spirit-guided Tradition of the Church?

 

[BobRyan]

So if you can assume God "inspired the later leaders" to canonize the NT (300 years after the NT was written, BTW), why are you so quick to assert that these same fathers were interpreting the NT so badly (by your standard)? Why can't you believe that God might have possibly guided them in the correct interpretation (the rule of faith) of these Scriptures they canonized and that some of your interpretations just might be wrong?

The Acts 17:11 model of Sola Scriptura for testing public teaching and the 2Tim 3:16 sola scriptura model for the foundation of all doctrined DOES NOT assume that either Paul in Act 17 or that the church leaders of the 3rd century are "always wrong".

RATHER it assumes that "The Word of God is ALWAY right"!

That is a huge difference!

Because it is the WORD that tells us that the Holy Spirit is given to us as THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH.

It is the WORD that says HE WILL GUIDE us into all TRUTH John 16.

It the WORD that says "God will give you understanding in everything" 2Tim 2.

It si THE WORD that says that BASIC to the NEW COVENANT with EACH believer is the Gospel benefit that GOD HIMSELF will be our teacher (Heb 8).

It is the WORD that tells us that "HIS annointing teaches us" 1John 2.

WE can TRUST the WORD of God! And doing so does NOT require that the church leaders of the 3rd century must "always be wrong".

Praise God that they still held to some key Bible truths from the first century!

Praise God that they were used to continue the work of evangelism.

But that does not change our DIRECT relationship to God as identified in the New Covenant!

Those who trust the Bible know that "EACH ONE must given an account FOR HIMSELF before the judgment seat of Christ (2Cor 5)". There will be no Catholic priest/Pope standing there in our stead. I trust that you know that as do we all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Paul, for one, commanded the church to keep the traditions, whether oral or his epistle (2 Thess 2:15)

Paul stated in 2Thess 2 that the Christian church would fall into apostacy in the future.

He also stated in Acts 20 that FROM WITHIN the church the doctrinal errors and leaders would arise.

The entire book of 1 Timothy is almost entirely dedicated to telling Timothy about all the doctrinal errors in his church that need to be put out and includes the statement that "In the last days men WILL FALL AWAY from the faith giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons". 1Tim 4:1

All that "error" predicted - DID come in!!

The NT writers were right! Believe it or not.

As Christ said in Mark 7 "In vain do they worship me - teaching for doctrine the commandments of men".

This does not tell us that ALL TRADITION IS ERROR - rather it tells us that Tradition is subject to BEING in error and must be tested "sola scriptura".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Bugman]

Paul, for one, commanded the church to keep the traditions, whether oral or his epistle (2 Thess 2:15) and neither he nor anyone else in Scripture put a time limit on that command (ie keep what was taught orally only until the "canon was closed"). And just how is it that we know that we have an "infallible Bible"? How do we know that we even have the right books to constitute that infallible Bible if not for the Spirit-guided Tradition of the Church?

So your saying that the bible commands us to keep oral traditions (which I wouldn't be totally inclined to agree with) and we know that we have the right bible becasue we kept those traditions. Are we not going in circles? Bible says to keep traditions, traditions says what is bible?

Bryan
SDG

 

[Eric B]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eric B:
I don't know; but "the Bible didn't just plop out of the sky but was given in a historical context" looks like a way of subjecting it to the Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? I thought I was making a historically accurate observation. The books of the Bible were written over a thousand years, and it took a few more centuries before it was finally canonized. The Bible is not the Koran or the Book of Mormon, afterall. The birth of the Church preceded the writing of the NT (just as Israel preceded the existence of the Torah).

And these congregations were personally established by the apostles and were taught the Truth for decades before the NT epistles were written to them. (It was even longer for those congregations that were not the direct recipients of the letters, etc) This is the context to which I'm referring.

And that context is direct apostolic authority. Not second century or later interpretation; projected back into the first century under the guise of a supposed "apostolic tradition"; which just cannot be proved to heve been handed down except by projection.

So if you can assume God "inspired the later leaders" to canonize the NT (300 years after the NT was written, BTW), why are you so quick to assert that these same fathers were interpreting the NT so badly (by your standard)? Why can't you believe that God might have possibly guided them in the correct interpretation (the rule of faith) of these Scriptures they canonized and that some of your interpretations just might be wrong? Otherwise, why do you just assume God must have inspired them to "get it right" about the 27 book NT canon, just because that happens to be the books that you have in your bible, when several of the books were disputed for centuries? Isn't it special pleading to believe God "inspired" them to canonize the right books yet discount the possibility that He guided this same Church in the correct unified interpretation of so many of Biblical doctrines that a divided Protestantism disagrees about today?

Because their interpretations don't match what is in those books they canonized. It adds things to it (so it is not really so much about "interpretation" with "mine" versus "theirs" at all); and if the apostles wanted to teach those things; they could have just written it instad of hiding it. Thus; as I said; "in spite of themselves". Once again; if left up to them; the Gospels of Mary would have been in there; whether they bore an apostles name or were apart of the liturgy or not. (they could always add it and claim "tradition". BTW both books can be found in Lost Books of the Bible and Forgotten Books of Eden).
And once again; sacramentalism (Catholic/Orthodox) is divided too. And most of Protestant divisions were drawn along cultural lines anyway (not most denominations come out of a particular country). Just like the original Greek/Latin schism. Then, other doctrines differences that arise will follow. Rome could argue that if everyone kept Latin; then all would have remained in the one unified church. The Orthodox were the first to go vernacular; so they sould be accused of starting the Protestant ball rolling!

Since the Creed was originally written without the filique. The Filioque was the doctrinal novelty which didn't appear anywhere until the late 6th century at a local synod in Spain. As late as the ninth century the Pope of Rome agreed with the East (at a council at Constantinople) that the filioque was not to be in the Creed. At the turn of the millenium Rome "flip-flopped" and the rest is history.

And I'm sure those who added and defended it used the same "apostolic tradition" line, on the premise that it highlighted.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(It was the one authority approach that became so corrupted that it led people to revolt and try the individual apporach.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It against the Roman aberrations that the Protestants revolted.

Rome by then was the sole "authority" in the West.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by TC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
By way of demonstration, let me ask you a question@ with whose view of Scripture do you ally yourself based on Scripture alone: the Calvinists or the Arminians, the cessationists or charismatics, the covenantists or dispensationalists, the sacramentalists or sola fide brigade, the pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, a-millenialists, secret rapture Left Behind -ers, pre-tribs, post-tribs, partial or total preterists, episcopalians, presbyterians or congregationalists, women who wear trousers (pants) or skirts, those who have women preachers or those who think women should keep their mouths shut etc etc, ad nauseam ad nauseam. Please quote chapter and verse for each of your positions and also demonstrate how your interpretation of each verse is superior to that of the opposing camp

Yours in Christ

Matt

No, your bankrupt view of the scriptures has been amply demonstrated. I have great confidence that every word of the scriptures is true and correct and that it does not matter if my, or anyone elses, interpretation is wrong. A person's wrong interpretation does not change the truth of scripture.

</font>[/QUOTE]And could you now please answer my above question

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by icthus:
Matt Black, you wrote:

"As I dialogue with other evangelical Christians, the more I become convinced that sola Scriptura is a nonsense and that there is a need for a single church teaching authority to interpret the Bible"

I really don't see how, Matt, if you are a born-again Christian, that you could consider the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" to be "a nonsense"? This just does not add up, and I do not understand how anyone who professes to follow Jesus Christ can come to such a conclusion?

Do you know what is meant by "Sola Scriptura"? This term is used to show that Scripture ALONE, that it, the 66 books of the Holy Bible, is the highest and ultimate Authority for us who follow the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a fact, since ALL Scripture is "given by inspiration of God", that the Words we read have the Authority of the Holy Spirit, since He is the Author of the original autographs. To abandon the position of "Sola Scriptura", would mean that you would be rejecting the Holy Bible as your final authority, since Scripture alone, according to you, is not sufficient in determining what we believe. This is a VERY dangerous road to go down, and in my opinion, will cause you many problems. How can you every quote the Bible to anyone to defend, for example, to a Jehovah's Witness, that Jesus is Almighty God, if you do not do so on the Authority of Scripture? If you yourself do not have the full assurance that Scripture alone is sufficient, then you cannot use the Bible as it is intended, as the Word of God. The rejection of "Sola Scriptura" also would call into question the Infallibility and Inerrancy of the Holy Bible. Please do reconsider your position, as it is not "Sola Scriptura" that is the problem, but how people interpret it. Just because you see some heated discussions on the BB, to which I am also a part, should not make you question the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". What is the next step? If you have this view, would you also consider that Jesus is no longer the Only Way, simply because there are many who claim to be Christians, but life lives that are more like devils?

The problem I have with SS is with the 'just' in your 'just because' above. To my mind, there is no 'just' about it; there's no epistemological point in an infallible Bible if it produces a plethora of mutually contradictory - and therefore fallible - interpretations; it simply leaves us nowhere doctrinally. As DT has already pointed out, Scripture did not arise in a vacuum and should not be interpreted in a vacuum; the NT in particular was written, edited, compiled and discerned by the Church and therefore the Church must have the primary interpretative role. Now this of course, as Bugman has hinted, then leads us to another question: what/ who is the Church?

DT has also pointed out that Christ is our supreme authority, not the Bible: God so loved the world that He sent a Person, not a book, to save us. How do we know Christ; yes, through Scripture, but not Scripture alone, IMO. For instance, if I want to know about Tolkien, I could read Humphrey Carpenter's excellent biography of him. Or I could talk to the people who knew him: his friends, his family etc It is exactly the same with Jesus; His friends and family are called the Church

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Good post, Matt.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Bugman:
So your saying that the bible commands us to keep oral traditions (which I wouldn't be totally inclined to agree with) and we know that we have the right bible becasue we kept those traditions. Are we not going in circles? Bible says to keep traditions, traditions says what is bible?

Circular reasoning? You mean like when people appeal to the Bible for the authority of the Bible? (ex. "I believe the Bible is inspired because the Bible says it's inspired")

I already mentioned in previous post how one can't escape a hermeneutical spiral of sorts, but one can (and must) avoid completetly circular reasoning. We not only have the command from Paul to keep the traditions (whether oral or epistle) but we also have the early church fathers stressing the importance of keeping the tradition in order the confute the heretics who misinterpret the Scriptures outside of the tradition. And we do have the Church, guided by the Spirit and adhering to apostolic tradition, able to recognize those books (not just 2 Thessalonians) which conform to that true Christian tradition. So we have historical documentation of the apostles teaching (in the writings that were to become the NT) the importance and authority of Scripture, Church, and tradition, and we have documentation of the early church fathers teaching the same thing.

 

[Kiffen]

Hi Matt and Doubting Thomas,

I apprecriate your comments and desire to be consistent.

I would suggest you visit "Reformed Catholicism" at http://www.phoenixfellowship.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=sola+scriptura

There is a list of articles on sola scriptura. (NOTE: This is not a Roman Catholic site but a Calvinist blog of some pretty good discussions on achieving Christian unity)

and a good article by Tim Enloe at http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/2005/03/unitive_protest.html

The Home page is http://www.phoenixfellowship.com/rc/

 

[Doubting Thomas]

EricB:

And that context is direct apostolic authority. Not second century or later interpretation; projected back into the first century under the guise of a supposed "apostolic tradition"; which just cannot be proved to heve been handed down except by projection.

One can historically make a much better case for second century writers being familiar with the first century thought-forms and thus the context of the church and of the apostles' tradition/Scripture, than one could for projecting back 16th century thought-forms into the first century and pretending that those interpretations are the true ones. The NT wasn't written (nor was the Church established and the tradition handed down by the apostles) in the 16th century context of rationalism, scholasticism, and nominalism.

Because their interpretations don't match what is in those books they canonized.

Actually, they do. They just don't match your modern day interpretations of those books.

It adds things to it (so it is not really so much about "interpretation" with "mine" versus "theirs" at all)

Rather, one can just as easily argue that 16th century Protestants (and their heirs) subtracted various things from it.

and if the apostles wanted to teach those things; they could have just written it instad of hiding it.

But you are assuming that the apostles committed every single detail to writings. However Paul indicates otherwise (2 Thess 2:15). The early Christians believed otherwise as well. No where in the NT does it say that there was going the be a book or series of books that was to function as a systematic Christian catechism or a complete manual on every nuance of Christian worship. Instead Paul says to keep the traditions, rather given orally or by his epistle (and certainly his two epistles to the Thessalonians were not all-emcompassing instruction manuals on practising the Christian faith). No where does he put a time limit on how long they are to keep the traditions he passed on orally; ie he didn't say: "Keep the oral traditions only until the rest of my writings (and those of the other apostles--once you determine which are real and which are spurious) circulate your way." Instead, most of his epistles were written to already established and worshipping communities (or individuals) and were written mainly to answer specific concerns of the respective communities.

Thus; as I said; "in spite of themselves". Once again; if left up to them; the Gospels of Mary would have been in there; whether they bore an apostles name or were apart of the liturgy or not.

That's ironic: on the one hand you don't seem to know whether the early Christian writers could be familiar with first century thought forms (the context in which Scriptures are written and the Church established), but on the other, you are confident about what books they would put into the canon if "left to themselves". You don't consider that the same Holy Spirit who came down on the Church at Pentecost and who inspired the NT authors, could also guide the early post-apostolic church in continuing in the apostolic tradition and correctly interpreting Scripture and finally canonizing the Scriptures. (I don't see any record of the early orthodox Christians grudgingly leaving anything out of the canon.)

BTW both books can be found in Lost Books of the Bible and Forgotten Books of Eden).

And so are some writings of the early Church Fathers and also some pseudigriphal writings. Just because those books aren't canonical doesn't mean that they are totally devoid of useful material and true facts. Both Paul and Jude allude to or quote some non-canonical writings in their epistles.

And most of Protestant divisions were drawn along cultural lines anyway (not most denominations come out of a particular country).

I wouldn't call the differences between: Calvinism and Armininianism; adult-only v. infant baptism; unitarianism v. Trinitarianism; or sacraments v. merely-symbolic "ordinances" merely "cultural". These are mutually contradictory doctrines that involve the nature of God and salvation.