If you are not considering Protestant alternatives, then yes it would be between those two, because if you go to one, you are by that action saying that the other does not possess apostolic teaching in its full purity. If you go to the West, you are saying that the East is wrong in its teaching on the office of the bishop of Rome, and vice versa. You have to make the decision, based on your own study, which that is.
If it is between those two, why aren’t you Catholic or Orthodox?
Here is my two cents…let the Holy Spirit guide you.
Because I believe neither of them possess correct doctrine in all that they teach. However, it would be untenable for me to say that the apostolic, early church and early middle ages church was not the church which had the schism in 1054. Our contention, as confessional Protestants, is that the Roman See drifted from being a pure successor to apostolic doctrine when it rejected the Reformation.
Do you believe, Iggy, that your Baptist tradition possesses correct doctrines in all that it teaches?
Iggy, if Jesus was being truthful when He said that “the Gates of Hell will not prevail” against the Church, then your own premise falls to pieces.
The promise of Christ to the church is not that the church will always and at all times be correct in all that it does and teaches. That is a presupposition that is not warranted by the text, given the warnings that the apostles give regarding false teaching within the church. The promise is that, in the eschatological reality of things, the church will be triumphant over Satan. That the church has allowed error is demonstrable by church history itself.
I was raised Baptist. I am, however, moving away from distinctively Baptist views. As I haven’t joined any other tradition, though, I guess that’s what I still am
Indeed, as every church is.
No, fallible does not mean it is going to be wrong. It just means that it is possible that, at some point, it could be wrong. I am fallible when it comes to spelling. That does not mean it is not possible that I will score 100% on a spelling test.
To be fair, no denominations have stemmed from Luther. From the Reformed and Anglican wing, yes.
Very good, then.I was raised Baptist. I am, however, moving away from distinctively Baptist views. As I haven’t joined any other tradition, though, I guess that’s what I still am
Why do you believe that “every church is” fallible?
Fair enough.
)
No, it is not because I believe that men cannot be infallible. It is that I have no positive scriptural or historical evidence that they have been, as it relates to the post-apostolic church.
It potentially could be wrong on that subject, yes.Fair enough.
But what it means, as you’re fallible, is that at some point in your life you’re going to spell something incorrectly. Going to. Or, in fact, already have. There is no doubt about that, right?
In fact, if I did a search of your posts here what are the chances that I’m going to find a spelling error do you think? Especially if you don’t use “spell check” (hey! another metaphor just came to my head: we all need “spell check”–that is, the authority of the Catholic Church–in order to make sure our spelling (i.e doctrine) is correct, as we are indeed fallible and are going to err in our spelling (doctrine) at some point in our postings here.
So the Baptist Church got 100% correct on its “spelling test” (here, read, say its proclamation of the dogma of the Trinity).
But, as its a fallible organization, it’s been wrong (or going to be wrong) in its spelling on other tests (for example, its rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary). That’s what fallible means.
Fair enough.
