Fallacies of sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter richardacombs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We do not consider them Christian, but I’m pretty sure they consider themselves Christian, right? Sort of like how when King Henry founded the Anglican Church, he excommunicated the Pope and the Pope excommunicated him!

I guess we’ll figure out who was right eventually…🤷
You don’t know??? By the way I think you are confusing King HenryVIII with the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch issued a declaration of excommunication of the Pope who had previously died. Kind of hard to excommunicate someone who has already been judged by God.
 
Quickcat I was wondering if you could respond to my critique of your…unique interpretation of John 6 as well as other statements? I’ll repost the same thing again, minus a statement not pertinent to your post:

Did you know that the 12 apostles DID NOT know that our Lord Jesus Christ was to die, be resurrected and ascend into heaven during the time frame of the gospel accounts? In Luke 9:6 they were sent to preach the gospel. What was the content of that gospel they were to preach? Did you know that even on the day of Pentecost that Peter preached the cross as bad news in that he accused the Jews of murdering their Messiah? Did you know that our Lord Jesus Christ, in His earthly ministry, came ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And that he was speaking to Israel in John 6 and told them that it is the “Spirit that giveth life, the flesh profited nothing; THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK TO YOU THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE.”

Response: The gospel they preached was most likely the same one he preached during his life: repentance and baptism. Peter followed suit. The fact that the baptism baptises into Jesus’ death is a nice side effect, and more was taught as more was understood by the fledgling Church, which has interesting implications for the definition of dogma, but I digress. Interestingly, this statement I do not believe is completely true anyway, because at the end of Luke, Jesus taught them from the Scriptures, but they recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread, and ONLY at the breaking of the bread. Interesting, I’m seeing parallels with the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist, but again I digress.

Perfectly logical to assume that Eucharistic teaching was expanded, since Paul seems to have a rich theology later. This Eucharistic theology in Luke would seem to be part of this gospel…

As for the comment about verse 63 that many protestants try to desperately hold on to, I am not sure how you mean to imply that Jesus used increasingly graphic physical language throughout the second half of the bread of life discourse, then says “but I didn’t mean it, it’s all a symbol.” That explains why it was such a hard saying, in fact the first time he lost many disciples. Oh wait, it doesn’t.

1 Corinthians 2:12-15: " Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gift bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one."

Saint Paul’s use of “judged spirituality” in 1 Corinthians 2:14 is not in a context distinguishing literal interpretation from a symbolic interpretation, rather it distinguishes the natural man who does not understand God from the spiritual man who “judges spiritually.” Judging spiritually does not mean judging symbolically. Protestants like to act as if this one verse cancels out everything Jesus just said, ignoring the shift to exclusively literal language and the fact that apparently the followers understood Him literally as well because they left. The thing is, if Jesus did mean all of it symbolically based off this one verse they are misconstruing, then that would be saying that Jesus negated the whole point of this very long sermon, basically saying “eat my flesh, but you’ll find it a waste of time.”

And lastly, since the kingdom of David included Jew and Gentile, and Jesus is the new David, Im not exactly sure how the implications that Jesus had gentiles in mind all along in the gospels is not EMBARASSINGLY obvious, but hey, I’m just a digressing machine. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kingdom of David does not have both Jews and Gentiles in a joint body. In that kingdom the Jew is the head and not the tail. The O.T. knows nothing of a joint body of Jews and Gentiles with both losing their identify as a new creation [Eph. 3:6; 2 Cor 5:17]. The Body of Christ was hidden in God until revealed to Paul. [Eph. 3; Col. 1; Romans 16:25]
 
I haven’t “avoided” anything. Do I believe everything the apostles believed? Of course I do. I believe that they were sent only to the lost sheep of Israel - Mt. 10:5-10. I believe that they were to preach, "The kingdom of Heaven is at hand - Mt.10:7. I believe that they believed this “kingdom at hand” to be the long promised earthly kingdom promised to Israel - Acts 1:6. I believe that they agreed with Paul to confine their ministry to Israel - Gal. 2:7-9. I believe that Paul is the “apostle to the Gentiles” - Rom. 11:13. I believe that the 12 believed that they would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel - Mt 19:28. Etc, etc. Of course I believe what the apostles believed. But I don’t believe that everything they believed is for the Body of Christ church. Read the address on the envelope.
QC
QuickCat,
Wow, please help me out here. You say “But I don’t believe that everything they believed is for the Body of Christ church.” What do you mean by that? For example, it appears rather conclusively that the Apostles not only believed in the real, physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, but that they taught that belief to their successors, whom we call the early church fathers, and that belief has been handed down for 2,000 years in the Catholic Church. Isn’t that a teaching that is intended for “the body of Christ church?” If one belongs to a church that teaches that the Eucharist is only symbolic, that church does not believe EVERYTHING that the Apostles believed.

Likewise, there is ample evidence that the Apostles believed that Jesus appointed Peter as head shepherd of His church, and that the Apostles believed they were to appoint successors. Isn’t that a teaching that is intended for “the body of Christ church?” The Catholic Church has done that for 2,000 years. If one belongs to a church that does not recognize the Pope as the current visible Vicar of Christ, that church, and therefore it’s members, do not believe EVERYTHING the Apostles believed.

If you do not believe in the real, physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and you do not believe that the Pope is the legitimate successor of Peter, how can you defend your statement that you believe EVERYTHING that the Apostles believed?

Minor question: What do you mean “Read the address on the envelope”?
 
=Nathan Wagar;6635300]
There is, in fact, no New Testament evidence that the apostolic was an “imperfect process” designed to be “crystallized” in writing. Neither Jesus (who never wrote any Scripture) nor the Twelve (who were never commanded to commit anything, much less everything to writing except the Book of Revelation), nor any other New Testament author, provide any support for the idea that the written Word “swallowed up” the oral tradition of the apostles. You say Jesus didn’t need to write anything. Yeah well guess what, he didn’t tell anyone else to either. And if you assume he did, you’re not getting it from the Bible, otherwise you’d only have the last book. There are all kinds of extra-biblical references in the New Testament, that you won’t know anything about unless you are aware of an oral tradition carrying on from the New Testament.
Nathan,
You are assuming things I haven’t said. Of coure there are all kinds of extra-biblical references. Of course there is Tradition. What we have that is certain, however, is the writings of the Apostolic era. The practice of sola scriptura simply expects that Tradition not contradict those certain and inspired writings.
Exactly how, on the basis of Bible alone, do we know that the tradition handed on by letter and the tradition handed on by word of mouth are identical?
Identical isn’t the issue. Contradiction is.
On the Non-catholics forum, Triune Unity, another Lutheran, has authored a series of threads about the Blessed Virgin and Marion beliefs. If is worth the time to read to understand how Lutherans view what one might call extra-biblical teachings.
How can you claim the Lutheran confessions authoritative if there is no apostolic succession? Wouldn’t even theoretically it be safer to pick, oh I dunno, someone closer to the source? And this is assuming you are leaving the Holy Spirit completely out of the equation.
If apostolic succession is the determing factor, then the issue becomes more complex. A number of the writers of the confessions were in succession, but it goes further. Orthodoxy is in succession, but have a different canon and doctrines. There are other Churches in succession - Old Catholics, PNCC, ALCC, and yes, even Lutherans in Scandinavia. I haven’t mentioned Anglicans, specifically the “dutch touch”, or ELCA Lutherans who have received the “duch touch” through Anglicans because, unlike the others, Rome denies this succession.

Jon
 
=po18guy;6635463]Just a little finger poke in the ribs, Jon. You are always one of the most reasoned and measured non-Catholics here - and we all appreciate that.
You are very kind. Thank you.
As to traditions disagreeing with scripture, none should. Many post-reformation traditions do, if we look around the world of Christianity. **All scripture backs the Catholic Church, but especially the NT, as it derives from the Church, not the other way around. **True Tradition and Sacred Scripture always agree, or complement one another.
I agree with what you say here, except the bolded part, and here’s why. You say True Tradition and Scripture always agree, and yet Rome and Orthodoxy, who share Tradition and scripture as a formula, do not agree on a number of doctrine. So, if sola scriptura is flawed because it leads to division, then so is Tradition, as it has lead to division, also.
Since Christ is the Word incarnate, no. However, neither did he command the Apostles to write, but to teach. Writing was one of the methods they chose, which reveals Apostolic authority.
And the writings are the only certain inspired source we have since the close of the apostolic era.
But, to confess anything means that the confessions had to be formulated, propounded, argued, debated, revised, winnowed (👍), etc. If they were not formulated by an authoritative Church, what guarantee of being Spirit-lead would those confessions have? Certainly, a lot of scripture is understandable to the common man, but not all.
Remember, we view authority in a different way than Rome.
But, sola scriptura not only allows private interpretation, it demands it. One must have authority to interpret scripture, and, lacking an authoritative Church, the self is all that’s left. Scriptire is not a norm, unless it is properly interpreted, and there’s the rub. Methodists and Presbyterians use it as a norm as well, but they don’t agree and you don’t agree with them. How to solve this, since you all read the same words???
And you have Tradition, and don’t agree with Old Catholics, or PNCC, or Orthodoxy.
Therefore, Tradition and Scripture cannot be a norm, either, for the same reasons as you provide above.
But those who went before you did just that. I mean, someone had to put the confessions together, and I do not believe they had any more authority than you or I possess.
With the one holy catholic apostolic Church divided so by human sin, this is probably the toughest question for all of us.
So, Lutherans must maintain that the confessions are inspired?
Lutherans view the Confessions and rightly reflecting that which is inspired - scripture.

Jon
 
You are very selective in you reading of scripture, reading only what supports your precoonceived theology. Come into the light

This passage is from ACTs 8:
3 Saul, meanwhile, was trying to destroy the church; entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment.
4 Now those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.
5 Thus Philip went down to (the) city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them

You can see from this passage that while Paul was still persecuting the chruch, Philip was preaching to the Samarians. The very same Samarians that Jesus would not preach to because they weren’t part of Israel.

And how about this from later in Acts 8:

26 Then the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, “Get up and head south on the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza, the desert route.”
27 So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28 and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
32 This was the scripture passage he was reading: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
33 In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth.”
34 Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, “I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?”
35 Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.
36 As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?”
38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.
39 When they came out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, but continued on his way rejoicing

Obviously here, we have an apostle, prior to St. Paul’s conversion, preaching to and baptizing an Ethiopian.

and how about ACTs 10, which recounts how God led Peter to baptize the gentile Cornelius and all his household.

Finally, lets look at Acts 15:
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they

As you can see, Peter is the one who God made the choice to speak to the Gentiles. (as we saw clearly in Acts 10).

I know Paul claims in Galatians 2 that it was agreed that he and Barnabas would go to the Gentiles and so they did, but not exclusively. If you read Acts, you know they usually started in the local synagogues and then went to the Gentiles… And I know he says the others would go to the circumcised and they did, but not exclusively nor for all time. From the passages I quoted above, you already know that Philip and Peter were preaching to the uncircumcized prior to Paul even becoming a believer. And ultimately as history tells us, Peter moved first to Antioch and then to Rome and preached to Jews and Gentiles alike… In 1Peter he addresses 5 cities in Asia Minor not confining it to Israel: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

As you can see, your claim that Paul was exclusively the apostle to the Gentiles is without merit and in fact is clearly wrong.
You obviously do not understand the book of Acts. Israel is still in covenant relation with God throughout the book of Acts. Our Lord gave the apostles a “kingdom” commission in Acts 1:8. The Body of Christ is not in view here. So long as Israel is in this relationship with God the “Jew first” is the order of the day. Saul is saved in Acts 9 and becomes Paul in Acts 13. He goes to the “Jew first” throughout Acts. In Acts 15 James seems to be in leadership. The Post Acts epistles written by Peter are to the dispersed Jews. You need to get into Ephesians and Colossians to study the Body of Christ. Read the address on the envelope. Peter is an apostle to the circumcision and will use the “keys of the kingdom” when he and the others sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the coming earthly kingdom.
 
You obviously do not understand the book of Acts. Israel is still in covenant relation with God throughout the book of Acts. Our Lord gave the apostles a “kingdom” commission in Acts 1:8. The Body of Christ is not in view here. So long as Israel is in this relationship with God the “Jew first” is the order of the day. Saul is saved in Acts 9 and becomes Paul in Acts 13. He goes to the “Jew first” throughout Acts. In Acts 15 James seems to be in leadership. The Post Acts epistles written by Peter are to the dispersed Jews. You need to get into Ephesians and Colossians to study the Body of Christ. Read the address on the envelope. Peter is an apostle to the circumcision and will use the “keys of the kingdom” when he and the others sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the coming earthly kingdom.
I obviously don’t understand the Book of Acts as you do. In fact, I would say your interpretation is unique. I’ve never heard the new testament broken up as you have. And of couse you have ignored the fact that the gospel was preached to non-Jews prior to Paul, as I have pointed out. I can show you the truth. I can’t make you believe it.

By the way, I showed you that the body of Christ discoursed were about unity not disunity as you would have it.
 
I agree with what you say here, except the bolded part, and here’s why. You say True Tradition and Scripture always agree, and yet Rome and Orthodoxy, who share Tradition and scripture as a formula, do not agree on a number of doctrine. So, if sola scriptura is flawed because it leads to division, then so is Tradition, as it has lead to division, also.
I am aware only of the “filioque” disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox as the main point of doctrinal disagreement. Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, whereas we believe He proceeds from the Father and the Son (probably a Lutheran holding, as well?). A lot of the rest is a product of the politics of the middle ages. Truth suffers in all cases of division.
And the writings are the only certain inspired source we have since the close of the apostolic era.
But, the bible nowhere says this. Someone with infallible and absolute authority had to declare this.
Remember, we view authority in a different way than Rome.
Let’s ponder whether or not this different view of authority lead Calvin and Zwingli to break away from Luther by their own authority. This reminds me of the lyrics from Dire Straits’ song Industrial Disease: “Two men say they’re (the Lord), one of them must be wrong…” For authority to be valid, it must be continuous and centralized, as its source is God alone, Who is One.
And you have Tradition, and don’t agree with Old Catholics, or PNCC, or Orthodoxy.
SSPX, Orthodoxy and others are in schism, which can be and is being healed. The OC are frozen in their own chosen time. That they have drifted from obedience reflects only on them, not on the obedient.
Therefore, Tradition and Scripture cannot be a norm, either, for the same reasons as you provide above.
Correct. Truth was revealed to man as Tradition, Scripture AND the Magisterium (teaching authority). This triune formula is the “fire triangle” of faith. Remove one and the flame dies.
With the one holy catholic apostolic Church divided so by human sin, this is probably the toughest question for all of us.
The coming tribulation will re-establish unity - but at great cost.
Lutherans view the Confessions and rightly reflecting that which is inspired - scripture.
As a brother in Christ, I must point out that Scripture was the last to be revealed as inspired, since both (Apostolic) Tradition and the Magisterium (teaching authority) preceded it. Do not think that this belief takes one tiny bit away from scripture - it only confirms it as truth. While various scriptures were being argued on their path to acceptance as the bible, they could only be tested against Apostolic Tradition through the lens of authority (Magisterium) to determine their inspiration. Apostolic Tradition contains within it all Scripture, but Scripture does not contain all Apostolic Tradition. Not one book or epistle of the NT begins with “Thus says the Lord…”

As well, nothing in the bible claims that it is the only authorized and inspired collection of scripture - except the Church which has the authority to do so. Neither Moses, nor any of the prophets or Apostles wrote the table of contents. That is a product of authority reserved solely to the Church. Whether we are aware of it or not, all Christians are delighted that infallible authority existed to produce the bible. Without that infallible authority, the Catholic Church is heavily damaged and all others have no trustworthy foundation.

Just my thoughts on this matter.
 
SSPX, Orthodoxy and others are in schism, which can be and is being healed. The OC are frozen in their own chosen time. That they have drifted from obedience reflects only on them, not on the obedient.
One small thing: SSPX aren’t schismatic. Their status is irregular, though.
 
One small thing: SSPX aren’t schismatic. Their status is irregular, though.
Mea culpa. I pay no attention to them other than to pray for their return to obedience.

Say, that’s certainly not Roland the headless Thompson gunner in your footer…
 
QuickCat,
Wow, please help me out here. You say “But I don’t believe that everything they believed is for the Body of Christ church.” What do you mean by that? For example, it appears rather conclusively that the Apostles not only believed in the real, physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, but that they taught that belief to their successors, whom we call the early church fathers, and that belief has been handed down for 2,000 years in the Catholic Church. Isn’t that a teaching that is intended for “the body of Christ church?” If one belongs to a church that teaches that the Eucharist is only symbolic, that church does not believe EVERYTHING that the Apostles believed.

Likewise, there is ample evidence that the Apostles believed that Jesus appointed Peter as head shepherd of His church, and that the Apostles believed they were to appoint successors. Isn’t that a teaching that is intended for “the body of Christ church?” The Catholic Church has done that for 2,000 years. If one belongs to a church that does not recognize the Pope as the current visible Vicar of Christ, that church, and therefore it’s members, do not believe EVERYTHING the Apostles believed.

If you do not believe in the real, physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and you do not believe that the Pope is the legitimate successor of Peter, how can you defend your statement that you believe EVERYTHING that the Apostles believed?

Minor question: What do you mean “Read the address on the envelope”?
Happy to help you! First, I want you to know that the LORD Jesus Christ had you personally in mind when He went to the cross. “Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” The number 12 pertains to Israel: [1] Twelve patriarchs [2] Twelve tribes [3] Twelve thrones (on earth) to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. I believe everything they said because the Word of God is true. The twelve ministered to Israel as per their instructions from the LORD Jesus Christ. Israel has an earthly hope. The twelve had to learn about the Body of Christ from Paul. They then agreed with Paul that they would confine their ministry to Israel. “Read the address on the envelope!” James writes to the “twelve tribes …” [Israel]. Peter writes to the Jews of the dispersion [Israel]. John writes to “My little children.” [Israel]. Israel will one day be the head and not the tail [on earth]. They will evangelize the Gentiles [on earth]. The Body of Christ has a heavenly hope - the “catching away” of the church-age believers. Our citizenship is in heaven. If you are going to study the Body of Christ you must be in Paul’s epistles. When our Lord used the Hebraic idiom of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” He was addressing the Jews in the Synagogue. “Eating and drinking” denotes the operation of the mind in receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God. Note Deut. 8:3; Jer. 15:16.
 
Happy to help you! First, I want you to know that the LORD Jesus Christ had you personally in mind when He went to the cross. “Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” The number 12 pertains to Israel: [1] Twelve patriarchs [2] Twelve tribes [3] Twelve thrones (on earth) to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. I believe everything they said because the Word of God is true. The twelve ministered to Israel as per their instructions from the LORD Jesus Christ. Israel has an earthly hope. The twelve had to learn about the Body of Christ from Paul. They then agreed with Paul that they would confine their ministry to Israel. “Read the address on the envelope!” James writes to the “twelve tribes …” [Israel]. Peter writes to the Jews of the dispersion [Israel]. John writes to “My little children.” [Israel]. Israel will one day be the head and not the tail [on earth]. They will evangelize the Gentiles [on earth]. The Body of Christ has a heavenly hope - the “catching away” of the church-age believers. Our citizenship is in heaven. If you are going to study the Body of Christ you must be in Paul’s epistles. When our Lord used the Hebraic idiom of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” He was addressing the Jews in the Synagogue. “Eating and drinking” denotes the operation of the mind in receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God. Note Deut. 8:3; Jer. 15:16.
have you read 1Corinthians1 at all? Aren’t you doing exactly what Paul said not to do, dividing the church?

10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to 5 Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?​
 
=po18guy;6641869]I am aware only of the “filioque” disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox as the main point of doctrinal disagreement. Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, whereas we believe He proceeds from the Father and the Son (probably a Lutheran holding, as well?). A lot of the rest is a product of the politics of the middle ages. Truth suffers in all cases of division.
Well, yes, as western Christians, we confess with the filioque in the creed, but aong with the filioque, add Transubstantiation, Purgatory, papal primacy and infallibility, and Original Sin.
Let’s ponder whether or not this different view of authority lead Calvin and Zwingli to break away from Luther by their own authority.
Zwingli and Calvin never were “with” the Lutheran reformers. Their’s were separate movements.
This reminds me of the lyrics from Dire Straits’ song Industrial Disease: “Two men say they’re (the Lord), one of them must be wrong…” For authority to be valid, it must be continuous and centralized, as its source is God alone, Who is One.
And I would contend that, since 1054, there has been no one continuous, centralized authority. The issue authority is one of the very basic causes of division of the Church Catholic. If one wishes to base authority on succession, or even a continous history from the early Church, Orthodoxy has at least an equal claim to it. Therefore, to accept without question the authority of either, one must take their word for it.
SSPX, Orthodoxy and others are in schism, which can be and is being healed. The OC are frozen in their own chosen time. That they have drifted from obedience reflects only on them, not on the obedient.
I’ll leave SSPX aside. Orthodoxy claims the same about Rome. We’re back to taking someone’s word for it. And Old Catholics, from what I understand, reject papal infallibility as an innovation, and opinion shared by many, east and west.
Correct. Truth was revealed to man as Tradition, Scripture AND the Magisterium (teaching authority). This triune formula is the “fire triangle” of faith. Remove one and the flame dies.
You’ve asked me a number of times this question: where does the Bible say that? I won’t ask you to answer that. It is what Rome, and only Rome teaches.
The coming tribulation will re-establish unity - but at great cost.
I believe it will be with great celebration, that the Church Militant will be in unity as the Church Triumphant is.
As a brother in Christ, I must point out that Scripture was the last to be revealed as inspired, since both (Apostolic) Tradition and the Magisterium (teaching authority) preceded it. Do not think that this belief takes one tiny bit away from scripture - it only confirms it as truth. While various scriptures were being argued on their path to acceptance as the bible, they could only be tested against Apostolic Tradition through the lens of authority (Magisterium) to determine their inspiration. Apostolic Tradition contains within it all Scripture, but Scripture does not contain all Apostolic Tradition. Not one book or epistle of the NT begins with “Thus says the Lord…”
As well, nothing in the bible claims that it is the only authorized and inspired collection of scripture - except the Church which has the authority to do so. Neither Moses, nor any of the prophets or Apostles wrote the table of contents. That is a product of authority reserved solely to the Church. Whether we are aware of it or not, all Christians are delighted that infallible authority existed to produce the bible. Without that infallible authority, the Catholic Church is heavily damaged and all others have no trustworthy foundation.
We have a large task in front of us, if we wish to bring about the unity Christ called us to: and that is work to gether with the guidance of the Spirit in dialogue.
Just my thoughts on this matter.
I found them thought-provoking, and accreciate the conversation.

Jon
 
Can we? You just got through saying there’s a truth applicable only to Catholics.
John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

I believe that, yes, we can agree on this. That we might disagree on exactly what the truth is regarding authority doesn’t change the fact that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. What you and I believe regarding what Truth is doesn’t change what Truth is. Our disagreements are only evidence of our sinful nature, not a variation of His Truth.
So, yes, Catholics and Lutherans can agree on the truth that Christ is the only way we come to the Father.

Jon
 
John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

I believe that, yes, we can agree on this. That we might disagree on exactly what the truth is regarding authority doesn’t change the fact that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. What you and I believe regarding what Truth is doesn’t change what Truth is. Our disagreements are only evidence of our sinful nature, not a variation of His Truth.
So, yes, Catholics and Lutherans can agree on the truth that Christ is the only way we come to the Father.
No sale. The truth you were talking about was the correct interpretation of Scripture – which, as an adherent of sola scriptura, you must consider more important than anything. You said the Catholic Church’s interpretation was true for Catholics. If it’s true only for Catholics, then it can’t be true for anyone else. That’s tantamount to denying that there is one Truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top