Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post

I think, that you believe in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, as do many many people. Josiah and JonNC (sola scriptura advocates) - believe that the bread and wine really and truly become the flesh and blood of our Savior, once consecrated! There can only be one answer to this question. You and Josiah cannot both be right and it does matter…is very essential, according to the bible. Resolve this matter once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura!

First sola scriptura does not claim that it’s adherents will all come to the same conclusion on scriptural meanings.

Secondly, if you hold your own theological system to the standards you seem to hold sola scriptura to it fails also doesn’t it?
Reply With Quote

Firstly, I agree that sola scriptura does not claim that it’s adherents will all come to the same conclusion on scriptural meanings. That is why Jesus left the world with His Church and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” And why Paul said, Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

There can be only one truth regarding this doctrine and your statement does not help at all. It simply leaves the Christian with the conclusion that scriptural meaning cannot be definitively ascertained or observed.

Secondly, I couldn’t agree more! My theological system that can rightfully arbitrate, evaluate and finally resolve doctrinal disputes, is not sola scriptura, for SS fails by your own admission, if both you and I or MD defer to SS as our final authority for resolving anything.

Would you please answer the question that I have asked MD?

 

[SemperReformada]

Would you please answer the question that I have asked MD?

What question would that be?

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post

Would you please answer the question that I have asked MD?
What question would that be?

**
Post 613…**

 

[SemperReformada]

**
Post 613…**

If you are asking me if I think transubstantiation is an essential belief the answer is no.

 

[JonNC]

If you are asking me if I think transubstantiation is an essential belief the answer is no.

Hi Semper. Hope you are doing well.

Obviously, I would distinguish between real presence and Transubstantiation. As Joe said, I believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ as the words of institution, but that’s not to say I accept the Catholic dogma of Transub.
Just wanted to clarify, since my name was brought up.

Jon

 

[SemperReformada]

Hi Semper. Hope you are doing well.

Obviously, I would distinguish between real presence and Transubstantiation. As Joe said, I believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ as the words of institution, but that’s not to say I accept the Catholic dogma of Transub.
Just wanted to clarify, since my name was brought up.

Jon

Thanks for the clarification but although I don’t post as much here as you do I am quite the lurker and am well aware of your views.

BTW, I enjoy your posts a lot.

 

[T_More]

The Jews of Palestine never accepted the “Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha” as part of their sacred Scripture. The Protestants agreed with the Jews. Who better knew their Scriptures than the Jews?Such as?

TM, the author of 2 Macc. actually states that his book is the abridgment of another man’s work (2 Macc. 2:23). And he concludes the book by saying: “If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I can do” (2 Macc. 15:38). Hardly sounds “theopneustos” to me. “Mediocre” perfectly describes the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonicals). They don’t stand up to the Scriptures.

Hebrews 11:35-38

.Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37They were stoned[f]; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

Isn’t this a reference to 2 Maccabees Chapter 7?

 

[joe370]

SemperReformada, the question is not about transubstantiation. I didn’t even mention that word. This is the question addressed to MD. Please answer the question when you get the chance:

The problem will be solved when you and Josiah use sola scriptura, with the aid of Hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the following question:

I think, that you believe in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, as do many many people. Josiah and JonNC (sola scriptura advocates) - believe that the bread and wine really and truly become the flesh and blood of our Savior, once consecrated! There can only be one answer to this question. You and Josiah cannot both be right and it does matter…is very essential, according to the bible. Resolve this doctrinal dispute once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura!

 

[Bengoshi]

One of the problems I see so often is that catholics, mormons, JW’s, Pentecostals, for example, misunderstand and believe that Christ’s “church” is a building or denomination. It isn’t. It has nothing to do with “religion” but RELATIONSHIP…with Jesus Christ. You can belong to the biggest church or denomination but that means nothing. You can be the most “religious” person…but that too is meaningless. The church that Christ built is made up of all born-again believers everywhere. Belonging to the biggest church/denom is not an automatic ticket to heaven. The Scriptures tell us in Matt that strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it!

Hey bro, Pentecostals per se are not cults, It is the Oneness Pentecostals which are cults because the latter subscribes to modalism while the former does not.

 

[SemperReformada]

SemperReformada, the question is not about transubstantiation. I didn’t even mention that word. This is the question addressed to MD. Please answer the question when you get the chance:

The problem will be solved when you and Josiah use sola scriptura, with the aid of Hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the following question:

I think, that you believe in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, as do many many people. Josiah and JonNC (sola scriptura advocates) - believe that the bread and wine really and truly become the flesh and blood of our Savior, once consecrated! There can only be one answer to this question. You and Josiah cannot both be right and it does matter…is very essential, according to the bible. Resolve this doctrinal dispute once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura!

Since sola scriptura doesn’t claim that all believers will come to the same understanding of various verses of scripture why would you accept sola scriptura based on my converting someone to my way of thinking?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SR,

I think you need to back up a minute and just look at wht you’ve said…

First sola scriptura does not claim that it’s adherents will all come to the same conclusion on scriptural meanings.
First of all, we are not talking about insignificant items (how often did King David wear his crown?and what did it look like? and how many crowns did he have?

What we are talking about are the basic doctrines of Christianity - as found in Scripture - that can not be agreed upon. As I appreciate your statement…and to put it in another context… if different Universities were teaching the American Novel and used “Moby Dick” as their core work - and these students could not agree if the book was about fish or a bird or an earthquake. Now, if the author were to come back and listen to the discussions held at these Universities concerning his book - he would probably shake his head say that the people did not understand.

Here are three examples:

Christ said Baptism is necessary - yet SS adherants are indecisive: it is not necessary, it is not a bad idea but, still not required, yes - go ahead or it can only be in this particular format.
Christ said that unless His Flesh is eaten we have no life in us - yet SS adherants claim Christ did not mean what He said, this is just a memorial idea and not necessary, or, this is cannibalism and is a mistranslation and should be avoided.
Christ said that we are to confess our sins to the men He gave the Power to - yet SS adherants claim we are to go directly to God and man have no such Power, that the model to follow lies in the OT not the NT or this is just another mistranslation and should be avoided.

To claim that SS adherants will not come to the same conclusion is not ony a major understatement - it totally ignnors that the chaos that SS has created with 20,000+ groups, sects, assemblies, cults and all claiming to be a church. There is no real unity - not even the illusion of unity.

Secondly, if you hold your own theological system to the standards you seem to hold sola scriptura to it fails also doesn’t it?

No. There is no failue. And here is what we see:

Christ said Baptism is necessary, the Apostles were told to baptize and they did and taught others to baptize. The Early Church Fathers taught that baptism was necessary and they baptized. The records of the Catholic Church show a consistent and unbroken position that baptism is necessary and the Church baptizes - in a uniform and consistent manner. The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is necessary, it removes sin and endows the soul with special graces. And this has an almost 2,000 year history.

Christ said the Eucharist is necessary, the Apostles were told to consecrate bread and wine as Christ did into His Body and Blood they did and ordained others to do this. The Early Church Fathers taught that the Eucharist was necessary and they wrote and taught about its importance. The records of the Catholic Church show a consistent and unbroken position that th Eucharist is necessary and the Church says the Mass and consecrates bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ every hour of every day through out the world - in a uniform and consistent manner. The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is necessary, it gives us the very Life of Christ and endows the soul with special graces. And this has an almost 2,000 year history.

Christ said Confession is necessary, the Apostles were told to given the Power to forgive (or not forgive) sin after Christ rose from the dead and and they consecrated others to forgive sin. The Early Church Fathers taught that Confession was necessary and they wrote and taught about its importance. The records of the Catholic Church show a consistent and unbroken position that Confession is necessary and the Church provides the Sacrament of Confession - in a uniform and consistent manner. The Catholic Church teaches that Confession is necessary, it removes sin and endows the soul with special graces. And this has an almost 2,000 year history.

Arguing that SS provides anything other then confusion and chaos is simply ignoring the obvious evidence. around you.

God bless

 

[joe370]

SemperReformada, why won’t you simply answer the question:

SemperReformada, the question is not about transubstantiation. I didn’t even mention that word. This is the question addressed to MD. Please answer the question when you get the chance:

The problem will be solved when you and Josiah use sola scriptura, with the aid of hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the following question:

I think, that you believe in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, as do many many people. Josiah and JonNC (sola scriptura advocates) - believe that the bread and wine really and truly become the flesh and blood of our Savior, once consecrated! There can only be one answer to this question. You and Josiah cannot both be right and it does matter…is very essential, according to the bible. Resolve this doctrinal dispute once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura!

 

[SemperReformada]

SemperReformada, why won’t you simply answer the question:

SemperReformada, the question is not about transubstantiation. I didn’t even mention that word. This is the question addressed to MD. Please answer the question when you get the chance:

The problem will be solved when you and Josiah use sola scriptura, with the aid of hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the following question:

I think, that you believe in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, as do many many people. Josiah and JonNC (sola scriptura advocates) - believe that the bread and wine really and truly become the flesh and blood of our Savior, once consecrated! There can only be one answer to this question. You and Josiah cannot both be right and it does matter…is very essential, according to the bible. Resolve this doctrinal dispute once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura!

The “problem” as you call it has nothing to do with sola scriptura as I think I have stated now more than once.

Maybe I’ll get all Protestants to agree on belief “X” after you get all Catholics to agree on whether or not the scriptures are inerrant or whether Molinism or Thomism is correct. I could go on but even with a supposedly infallible authority your church hasn’t achieved unity.

The other thing that I find interesting is that you want to compare your one church to all other churches. If you want to compare my church’s unity with yours I will gladly do so but as it is now you have stacked the deck in your favor. Maybe we should compare the beliefs of those churches who have espoused an “infallible” authority to mine and see how you come out?

Anyway, why do you believe that for sola scriptura to be true it requires all individual beliers to believe the same thing about certain or all doctrines?

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
SemperReformada, why won’t you simply answer the question:

SemperReformada, the question is not about transubstantiation. I didn’t even mention that word. This is the question addressed to MD. Please answer the question when you get the chance:

The problem will be solved when you and Josiah use sola scriptura, with the aid of hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the following question:

I think, that you believe in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, as do many many people. Josiah and JonNC (sola scriptura advocates) - believe that the bread and wine really and truly become the flesh and blood of our Savior, once consecrated! There can only be one answer to this question. You and Josiah cannot both be right and it does matter…is very essential, according to the bible. Resolve this doctrinal dispute once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura!

The “problem” as you call it has nothing to do with sola scriptura as I think I have stated now more than once.

Sure it does, if the bible is to be the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal disputes.

Maybe I’ll get all Protestants to agree on belief “X”

If you could do this then I would be a SS advocate.

after you get all Catholics to agree on whether or not the scriptures are inerrant

Christians belonging to the CC do agree that the scriptures are inerrant, doctrinally speaking.

or whether Molinism or Thomism is correct. I could go on but even with a supposedly infallible authority your church hasn’t achieved unity.

Not familiar with Molinism or Thomism. The leaders of the CC are not infallible. If the Infallible Holy spirit is in fact guiding the CC, (perhaps the HS is guiding all PC’s) - then these fallible, sinful leaders are teaching doctrinal truth.

The other thing that I find interesting is that you want to compare your one church to all other churches.

I never said that; this thread is about defending SS, so please defend SS?

If you want to compare my church’s unity with yours I will gladly do so but as it is now you have stacked the deck in your favor. Maybe we should compare the beliefs of those churches who have espoused an “infallible” authority to mine and see how you come out?

This is totally irrelevant to the thread, and that is why I am not trying to compare my church’s unity with yours.

Anyway, why do you believe that for sola scriptura to be true it requires all individual beliers to believe the same thing about certain or all doctrines?

For the simple fact that there can be only one truth regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ. The holy spirit, the spirit of truth, is not guiding Jesus’ church into conflicting truths; the HS is guiding the church of Matthew 16 (I didn’t say the CC) - into all truth. There is only one correct teaching regarding Baptism or the the Eucharist. Either Jesus was speaking in metaphor or He wasn’t. I am simply asking you to use sola scriptura, with the aid of hermeneutics and exegesis to accurately interpret the Scriptures, by arbitrating evaluating and finally resolving the question for everyone. The reason that this is an impossible task is because SS via individual interpretation has led to 2 different interpretations of the Eucharistic doctrine, and both parties defer to SS with the aid of hermeneutics and exegesis for arbitration, (either individual or church leaders) - and neither party has any authority to settle the dispute for the simple fact that they see SS as their final authority. I believe that the church of Matthew 16 has the right to settle the matter, which ever church that may be.

If I am wrong, then simply resolve this doctrinal dispute once, and for all, and I will believe you, regarding sola scriptura via hermeneutics and exegesis, as the Christians final authority?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SR,

I thought Joe did a good job of responding to your post. i would like to add something to this that may shed a little more light on the topic.

The “problem” as you call it has nothing to do with sola scriptura as I think I have stated now more than once. Ignoring the ‘problem’ or calling a ‘problem’ a non-problem, does not change the nature of the matter. This link is focused on a defense of SS. PCs claim SS is the only authority - yet there is nothing but chaos (as evidence by contradictory teachings on every issue of doctrine) show convincingly that this is a failed system for basing one’s faith. Do not misunderstand what I am saying: the Word of God - the Scriptures which we Christians have from the Catholic Church - is without error. The issue is that Scripture must be interpreted - and this interpretation must come from a Source that will do so without error. That Source is the Holy Spirit - the same Spirit that Christ promised would always be with the Catholic Church - and it can not teach error.

Maybe I’ll get all Protestants to agree on belief “X” after you get all Catholics to agree on whether or not the scriptures are inerrant or whether Molinism or Thomism is correct. I could go on but even with a supposedly infallible authority your church hasn’t achieved unity.

This simply trivalizes the discussion.If you want to hang your argument on “Molinism vs Thomism” be my guest. The heart of the matter is that neither grace or free will is denied - and that is where it immediately differs from the heretics like Calvin and Hus. I recommed you read this excerpt so you can see that these scholars were debating and discussing areas that may not ever be resolved.
The name used to denote one of the systems which purpose to reconcile grace and free will. This system was first developed by Luis de Molina, and was adopted in its essential points by the Society of Jesus. It is opposed by the Thomistic doctrine of grace — the term Thomism has a somewhat wider meaning — whose chief exponent is the Dominican Bañez. Along lines totally different from those of Molina, this subtile theologian endeavours to harmonize grace and free will on principles derived from St. Thomas. Whereas Molinism tries to clear up the mysterious relation between grace and free will by starting from the rather clear concept of freedom, the Thomists, in their attempt to explain the attitude of the will towards grace, begin with the obscure idea of efficacious grace. The question which both schools set themselves to answer is this: Whence does efficacious grace (gratia efficax), which includes in its very concept the actual free consent of the will, derive its infallible effect; and how is it that, in spite of the infallible efficacy of grace, the freedom of the will is not impaired? It is evident that, in every attempt to solve this difficult problem, Catholic theologians must safeguard two principles: first, the supremacy and causality of grace (against Pelagianism and Semipelagianism), and second, the unimpaired freedom of consent in the will (against early Protestantism and Jansenism). For both these principles are dogmas of the Church, clearly and emphatically defined by the Council of Trent. Now, whilst Thomism lays chief stress on the infallible efficacy of grace, without denying the existence and necessity of the free cooperation of the will, Molinism emphasizes the unrestrained freedom of the will, without detracting in any way from the efficacy, priority, and dignity of grace. Here is the link for more information: newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

The other thing that I find interesting is that you want to compare your one church to all other churches. If you want to compare my church’s unity with yours I will gladly do so but as it is now you have stacked the deck in your favor. Maybe we should compare the beliefs of those churches who have espoused an “infallible” authority to mine and see how you come out?

You seem to have forgotten the other adjectives that go along with that: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. I admit no other group can claim this but the Catholic Church. The issue you seem to be addressing has nothing to do with SS - but, let me respond. It is united because the doctrine has come from the Holy Spirit protecting the Catholic Church from error. Look at your own church - doctrine continually changes.

God bless

Tom

 

[Monte1945]

The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is incapable of error (in official/formal matters of faith and morals)

You keep referring to the CC as though it is one person and one only… The infallible
position of the church is not in the pope but in the “office” of the pope.

In various moments of the history of the chruch there has been other catholics who have felt they received some message from the Holy Spirit and they are allowed to bring it up, present it to the theologians and they discuss it. The pope’s position is to defend the truths of the church. Just as Martin Luther was called to the Pope to tell the church was his different views were. They listened to him and they decided his doctrine of Faith alone was not of the church’s doctrine… and asked him to accept their decision to recant his views and promise to not teach those views… As at that time he was a Priest and Monk of the Catholic church. You must realize that the infallibilty of the Pope’s office was not offically proclaimed at this time of history. The pope was head of the chruch and the church followed his leading but his proclamations were not considered
infallible until July 18th 1870… long after all of the doctrines were settled.

He does not allow anyone to bring a change to the established doctrines of the faith.

When these people who have these other inspirations are done with
presenting their issues the pope has more power in “stopping” this new idea
than to make up a new one. He is known more as the “defender” of the faith.

No pope in the history of the chruch has ever added any doctrine which deals with
the salvation or the means to receive the Grace of God from the Sacraments.

Only twice in the history of the CC has any pope ever proclaimed a truth and that had
nothing to do with any doctrine which affects God’s plan of Salvation.

There has not been any problem with the pope being given the keys to the kingdom of God on Earth. The power of his “office” has never caused any problem with anyone.

The same doctrines have been “proclaimed” and protected within the church’s super structure for as long as anyone can remember… regardless of what name you feel
that church had.

Sounds to me that when the people of the christian church decided to go with the system which Jesus set up, by choosing certain “men” to hold positions in the church he set up. It isn’t such a bad idea. As it seems to have and is still working.

What was it that Jesus said, to the Leaders of the Jewish church when they said his works were of the devil… ? He said… “judge me by my works”… what is it in the catholic
church’s works that you find going against God?

 

[Monte1945]

Gee, Joe. This kinda hurts my feelings. I thought I bit pretty firmly. :bighanky:
If, indeed, we can agree that the authority was given to the Apostles, to be passed on to succeeding generations of Church leaders, the argument over succession aside, then we must admit that that authority, to the extent it was given to an institutional body, is now divided amongst us, east and west and within the west, because the Church is in schism.
There is no singular representative institution that alone succeeds those apostles.
Jon

One has to see that as parts of the original church broke off they seperated themselves from the main Rock… The first main church did not kick them out… they went because they refused to go along with the program… And they went and formed their own churches.
Leaving behind the main first church which we can know which one it is by the Catholic Church still teaching the same truths as they did in the beginning. She has never removed one doctrine from it’s beginnings… The other fragmented churches took what truths they wanted and dropped other doctrines. to suit themselves…

The Catholic church and her priests, Bishops, Deacons or any kind of person who takes a vow in the Religious order of the Catholic church can trace the hands of the bishop who laid them on his head at his ordination right back to one of the origirnal Apostles of Christ.

There is not any doubt or mystery as to which Christian chruch in the world today, was the one the Apostles set up… the non-catholic churches in the world has to think and believe it isn’t the Catholic Church as it would force them to see themselves as just chips
off the original rick… and we know how much ego and pride men have…
Which is really sad, as it certainly gives the "lost people’ of our world. plenty of reason to doubt that any christian church has the truth… they just roll their eyes and say…
"goodness, if THEY can’t agree… how can they claim God spirits is leading them’.

and they stay lost. You might be interested in knowing that when the devil tempted
Jesus in the desert in his second temptation. he was by telling him that he could
jump off that mountain and God’s angels wouldn’t allow him to hit his head on the rocks
below… ? Well that promise is in the psalm 91:11. The devil was quoting scripture to Jesus to get him to "tempt God’… seems the scriptures can be used to mislead and misguide people… Hmmm we can get much insight from the scriptures… but they can be misleading and we need the guiding light of the chruch to keep us within what the scriptures may be saying to us…

If you doubt this… I will give you some directions up in Appalchia where I am from and you can go into a snake handling church… it IS in the bible…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Monte,

These were excellent posts - and a real pleasure to read!

Keep up the good work!

God bless

You keep referring to the CC as though it is one person and one only… The infallible
position of the church is not in the pope but in the “office” of the pope.

In various moments of the history of the chruch there has been other catholics who have felt they received some message from the Holy Spirit and they are allowed to bring it up, present it to the theologians and they discuss it. The pope’s position is to defend the truths of the church. Just as Martin Luther was called to the Pope to tell the church was his different views were. They listened to him and they decided his doctrine of Faith alone was not of the church’s doctrine… and asked him to accept their decision to recant his views and promise to not teach those views… As at that time he was a Priest and Monk of the Catholic church. You must realize that the infallibilty of the Pope’s office was not offically proclaimed at this time of history. The pope was head of the chruch and the church followed his leading but his proclamations were not considered
infallible until July 18th 1870… long after all of the doctrines were settled.

He does not allow anyone to bring a change to the established doctrines of the faith.

When these people who have these other inspirations are done with
presenting their issues the pope has more power in “stopping” this new idea
than to make up a new one. He is known more as the “defender” of the faith.

No pope in the history of the chruch has ever added any doctrine which deals with
the salvation or the means to receive the Grace of God from the Sacraments.

Only twice in the history of the CC has any pope ever proclaimed a truth and that had
nothing to do with any doctrine which affects God’s plan of Salvation.

There has not been any problem with the pope being given the keys to the kingdom of God on Earth. The power of his “office” has never caused any problem with anyone.

The same doctrines have been “proclaimed” and protected within the church’s super structure for as long as anyone can remember… regardless of what name you feel
that church had.

Sounds to me that when the people of the christian church decided to go with the system which Jesus set up, by choosing certain “men” to hold positions in the church he set up. It isn’t such a bad idea. As it seems to have and is still working.

What was it that Jesus said, to the Leaders of the Jewish church when they said his works were of the devil… ? He said… “judge me by my works”… what is it in the catholic
church’s works that you find going against God?

 

[joe370]

Hey Tom ,you said:

There is not any doubt or mystery as to which Christian chruch in the world today, was the one the Apostles set up… the non-catholic churches in the world has to think and believe it isn’t the Catholic Church as it would force them to see themselves as just chips
off the original rick… and we know how much ego and pride men have…
Which is really sad, as it certainly gives the "lost people’ of our world. plenty of reason to doubt that any christian church has the truth… they just roll their eyes and say…
"goodness, if THEY can’t agree… how can they claim God spirits is leading them’.

This was my problem as a former Christian belonging to the Lutheran church. I stubbornly saw the CC as nothing more than another (chip) - man-made church, (as opposed to the church of Matthew 16 - the Rock on which Jesus built His church) - that is, until I came to my senses and removed those pesky myopic glasses, and in no way am I calling into question the love and charity of any PC, just in case a fellow protestant brother or sister in Christ, reads this post; just stating the facts. But I digress, back to the defense of SS.

Still hoping to have my questions answered, the very questions that I could not answer as a former protestant. Just trying to understand SS as opposed to being the cause of acrimony. That is absolutely the very last thing I want…

 

[joe370]

Jon, I just wanted to clarify that I would never use your name unless I was absolutely certain that I was speaking with utter truth regarding your name, and I never claimed that you were an advocate of transubstantiation, which seemed pretty clear in my post, but just wanted to mention this fact, for good measure! I never even used that word!

Since no one is attempting to answer my question regarding SS, I thought I would digress for a brief moment and address something that has weighed heavy on my mind:

I have been thinking and praying for an answer to the following question, to which you suggested, is in fact, a fact, due to the sin of man, since the East- West Schism, but an answer was not found. How can we be certain that this doctrinal deformation didn’t take place in the centuries that preceded the great schism of the 11th century? Anyway, this is the question:

Why would God allow HIS doctrinal truths, (that tell us who God is, and what God wants) - to become deformed due to the sin of man?

The only thing that makes any sense to me, (after much contemplation) - is the fact that doctrinal truth has in fact been preserved for all generations, as opposed to just the generations preceding the great schism These doctrinal truths have in fact been safeguarded by the ineffable work of the Holy spirit, in the church of Matthew 16, comprised of all sinful, fallible members, and will continue to be safeguarded until Jesus’ glorious return.

I have been pondering this ever since you and I discussed it a few weeks ago, and have really attempted to wrap my brain around this possibility of doctrinal deformation due to the sin of man, but viewed from every possible angle, I am left with the overwhelming conclusion that not everything is impossible for God, and that the sin of man can undo, and alter God’s initial plan of salvation for all, if in fact you are correct?

No doubt, doctrinal truth can in fact become deformed when people leave the church of Matthew 16 (which ever church that is; each Christian must decide that for themselves) - forever guided by the Holy spirit, into all truth - and establish new churches, basing all of their teachings on their interpretation of the bible, as their final authority?

But surely the power of God is greater than the sin of all men/women, multiplied by infinity, which ultimately means (for me anyway) - that the doctrinal truths regarding all that Jesus taught, and passed on to the church of Matthew 16, (comprised of all sinful, fallible sinners) - forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, is still very much intact?

Perhaps you could take one more shot at it, and share with me what I am missing, As I have said: This has been on my mind a lot lately!

Peace, your brother in Christ…

Joe