Does you definition of Christian include any m0ral teachings? You post seems to include anyone who self-identifies as a disciple of Christ. There are a lot of liberal Christians who accept abortion, gay marriage, premarital sex, etc. Would you say these are all Christians as long as they say the right things about Jesus? Is there any moral line that cannot be crossed?

Your attempt to spell out minimal doctrinal requirements is a start. I do think you are going to get a lot of disagreement about these matters. Is there any way of resolving this? Is every Christian supposed to flesh out the essentials and non-essentials on their own?

You wrote:

When one develops a private interpretation of Scripture that he will not submit for correction by Church leaders, he is by definition not practicing Sola Scriptura (cf. 2 Pet. 2:20-21; Heb. 13:17).

I’ll let others respond to the rest of your post. Just one question: how does this not describe Martin Luther’s behavior to a tee? Your claim here makes it sound like Luther proposed sola Scriptura while acting in a way inconsistent by definition, on your own showing, with sola Scriptura.

in Christ,

TC
1 Cor 16:14

There is no question that different interpretations of Scripture exist in both the RCC as well as in Protestant Churches. As others have indicated on this thread, all agree that there are essentials and non-essentials. On another post I started a list of some non-negotiables about affirming who God says He is (in order to obey the first commandment), Paul’s description of what is “of first importance” regarding Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus’ statement that “only one thing is necessary” (that is, to be His disciple), and “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you.” When you say that some Protestant Churches lists of essentials differs, what must be asked is: 1) do any of them leave out any of the non-negotiables that all orthodox Christians have always, everywhere, believed (to borrow from St. Vincent of Lerin’s description of the Catholic faith)? 2) If not, have they added anything that is inconsistent with the Gospel, as the Galatians did? In either case, the church would be teaching “another Gospel” and should be avoided. How does one determine these things? By reviewing Church history in light of Scripture. To correct a common misunderstanding: Sola Scriptura does not forbid references beyond Scripture, it merely submits for correction anything that is not consistent with Scripture. “Thy Word is Truth” and the principle of non-contradiction is operative.

On the question of the secondary authority of the Church under Sola Scriptura:

You assume that Protestants cannot recognize the Church based on Scripture, and therefore the secondary authority of Church leaders is not valid. I beg to differ. Scripture teaches that the Church is comprised of all who “are of God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is grown into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:19-22). The principle of unity according to the Apostles Paul and Peter is Christ Himself (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-10).

The Church encompasses the sheepfold comprised of all who are Christ’s sheep, as Jesus Himself taught: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them … and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (cf. John 10:27-29). Further, as Paul taught: “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of the truth, the gospel of your salvation – having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13). What is the Church? The assembly of those called out [the literal meaning of ekklesia] by God as Christ’s disciples, sealed with the Holy Spirit.

How does one recognize the Church from what is not the Church? By adherence to the teaching of the Apostles and by the observance of Christ’s commands (as noted above). Can one know these things from Scripture? Of course, as Irenaeus wrote that for the future, Scripture “is the foundation and pillar of the faith.” I would suggest, further, that any definition which excludes anyone from the Church whom Christ Himself defines as His sheep is faulty.

Finally, I do not understand why anyone cannot accept that there are many branches connected to the true vine. Paul wrote to the several “churches of Galatia” and commended not only “all the churches of the Gentiles,” but also house-churches (Philemon, cf. Rom. 16:5). The principle of unity is Christ Himself, the head and the cornerstone of His Church, wherever it meets visibly (cf. Matt. 18:20).

Blessings.

I believed certain things were infallible. For example, the immorality of abortion. I knew no matter what happened that abortion was and always would be immoral. So I was willing to accept that something, even something not explicit in scripture, could be revealed as infallible truth. I would never have used the word “infallible” but that is what I believed. How could it be known? It came from the church. But precisely how did it come from the church? It did not depend on majority opinion. It was settled. But what was the process that settled it? It was impossible to be precise.

So, as a Catholic, I am simply being more clear and more consistent about principles I already accepted as a Reformed Christian. The solo position was as far from me as the alcoholic is from the occasional drunk. That is, the distance was huge in my mind by likely not that far in reality. It is the same sin. It is just a matter of how often once commits it.