How can a sola scriptura proponent know that all revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

[joe370]

JohnnyReb;7596488]I am of the belief that most denominational differences arise of out theological speculation. When you speak of “the one church” I assume you mean the Catholic church. When you speak of “all the churches” I assume you mean Protestant denominations. I do not believe in churches. Like you, I only believe that Christ founded one church. Our difference lies in that how we see that one church. I do not see it as tied to one ecclesiastical institution. Its the similarities, not the differences, that make believers in all these institutions Christians. There is nothing more to reveal related to the Gospel. The Gospel message is the faith delivered once for all to the saints. The rest of it is fun stuff to argue about.

I am of the belief that most denominational differences arise of out theological speculation. When you speak of “the one church” I assume you mean the Catholic church. When you speak of “all the churches” I assume you mean Protestant denominations.

What if those similarities, (not the differences) - that make believers in all these institutions, Christians, begin to be challenged by a new crop of churches in the future? Should those similarities now become irrelevant differences? That’s what has been going on since the protestant reformation.

Johnny, when I say one church, yes, I am referring to the one CC that existed for 1000 years, until the east west schism. When I say the churches, I am referring to all the churches including the eastern orthodox, and their offshoots, the catholic church and the 23 rites in union with the bishop of Rome and all of the other non-Catholic churches.

I do not believe in churches. Like you, I only believe that Christ founded one church.

Well, I wish there was only one church in the world today, but sadly, that is not the case.

Our difference lies in that how we see that one church. I do not see it as tied to one ecclesiastical institution.

Sorry, not following you? All churches, regardless of denomination, were instituted by man, and possess an authoritative teaching office, including the church instituted by the God-Man - Jesus, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost.

Its the similarities, not the differences, that make believers in all these institutions Christians. There is nothing more to reveal related to the Gospel. The Gospel message is the faith delivered once for all to the saints. The rest of it is fun stuff to argue about.

So, the differences don’t matter, and therefore doctrinal truth, regarding those doctrinal differences do not matter; I think I understand your position. The Gospel message is the faith delivered once for all to the saints, but it is, according to sola scriptura the right of each and every sola scriptura saint to interpret the gospel message as they see fit - correct?

So, doctrines such as the Eucharist (unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you) - is just inconsequential fun stuff to argue about?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Same reason we do I reckon, through faith

So sola scriptura Christians can defer to faith, in lieu of scripture alone, when it comes to a teaching?

Faith is taught in scripture.

So the same holy spirit that was conferred upon the one church of Matthew 16, of the 1st century on Pentecost, forever guiding the church of the first century “into all truth,” continues to guide all of the churches, regardless of denomination, into all truth - today?

No, the Holy Spirit continues to guide the church that Christ instituted. This would be the remnant church of Rev. 12 which keep the commandments and have the tetimony of Jesus Christ (spirit of prophecy)

*“Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” Jude 1:3
*

Well, the deposit of faith as we have it today, did not exist when Paul spoke those words, but I get your point. How does Christ, Who said he would lead His one church to all truth,* (in view of the fact that there are now hundreds of churches which, quite often diverge, doctrinally speaking)* - continue to guide all of these churches into all truth?

The deposit of faith in Jesus Christ did not exist in Pauls time? you have to be kidding.

So, if, for example, 5 people from different churches disagree with one another regarding certain “truth claims”, those 5 people need only defer to scripture regarding their disagreements? What if, upon evaluation, those 5 people still disagree? Who or what has the God given authority to resolve their doctrinal differences? That, to me anyway, seems to be the crux of the problem regarding sola scriptura.

If they defered to the CC and came away with their differences unresolved. Then what?

 

[joe370]

Hey Richard, how you doing? You said:

Faith is taught in scripture.

Agreed, so sola scriptura Christians can defer to faith, in lieu of scripture alone, when it comes to a teaching, which was my original question?

No, the Holy Spirit continues to guide the church that Christ instituted. This would be the remnant church of Rev. 12 which keep the commandments and have the tetimony of Jesus Christ (spirit of prophecy)

I agree!

The deposit of faith in Jesus Christ did not exist in Pauls time? you have to be kidding.

No, I am not kidding. The deposit of faith (for most protestants, that would be the the 27 books of the New Testament) - did not exist as we have it today.

If Jesus Christ, Who said he would lead the church He instituted, into all truth, continues to guide the catholic church, the eastern orthodox church and all of the protestant, evangelical and non-denominational churches into all truth, then why are these separated churches divided, doctrinally speaking?

If they defered to the CC and came away with their differences unresolved. Then what?

That does not answer the following question, but to answer your question, those catholics with unresolved differences would humbly defer to the authority of the CC or, perhaps leave the CC and join another church which agrees with their interpretation of scripture.

Again, if, for example, 5 people from different churches disagree with one another regarding certain “truth claims”, those 5 people need only defer to scripture regarding their disagreements? What if, upon evaluation, those 5 people still disagree? Who or what has the God given authority to resolve their doctrinal differences? That, to me anyway, seems to be the crux of the problem regarding sola scriptura.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

First, Joe, I apologize if my interjections somewhat derail what you are getting at with SS.

Hey, that’s cool; no worries; I don’t mind as long as the moderator doesn’t mind.

Of course it is, given the power of the Holy Spirit. The first step may need to be unification of east and west. That’s not to say there won’t always be groups or individuals that diverge.

If Jesus continues to forever guide the church He started, almost 2000 years ago, into all truth, then why the need to wait for the 11th century east - west schism to be resolved? Why can’t one of these churches be the church of Matthew 16, John 14 and 16, forever guided by the HS into all truth?

But guidance, as I think we agree, is an ongoing thing, not a finite one-time event. Let’s say, for example, the ongoing discussions between our communions were to result in reconciliation. When would you say that guiding into all truth took place? Only when Lutherans and Catholics come to reconciliation? Or was it taking place through all the time it took to get us there?

I agree; the guidance of the holy spirit is an ongoing process that started on Pentecost and continues to this day. It seems reasonable to believe that, as long as the HS is still preserving doctrinal truth and forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth - all truth (revealed truth that is) – will continue to be preserved in Jesus’ church, regardless of the individuals who leave His church and choose another church, never to impugn the devout faith and wonderful works of these other churches of course; that goes without saying!

If the ongoing discussions between our communions were to result in reconciliation I would say that the guiding into all truth would take place when the communion founded by mere man would eventually conform to the teachings of the communion founded by Jesus Christ, forever guided by the holy spirit. Notice how careful I was there. LOL…LOL…

The guidance is still there, isn’t it? It wouldn’t stop simply because people didn’t respond to it.

That is my point exactly!

You agreed earlier that the Spirit still guides Lutherans, for example. As there has been no major breakthroughs recently, does that mean the Spirit’s guidance was suspended?

I believe that the holy spirit can inspire and guide Christians belonging to other churches, without doubt, but the HS, the spirit of truth, does not guide all churches into all truth, for obvious reasons,unless I am missing something.

Actually, I alluded to this earlier. I really believe the CC has taken its leadership role in the area of ecumenism. If, in fact, the CC has the one true authority, then that clearly is its role. Wouldn’t you say?

If, in fact, the CC has the one true authority, and I believe it does, thanks to the HS, then I agree with you, but most non-Catholics don’t agree with you or me.

Half way, like somewhere in the Alps?

Something like that…LOL…LOL…

Since they didn’t, would you not say that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is still for us to respond to today, in a way that they didn’t?

Sure, the guidance of the Holy Spirit is still there for all of us to respond to, today, but I still believe that the HS plays a pivotal role in guiding and safeguarding truth in the church founded by Jesus, almost 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, as opposed to a church founded by someone else at a much later date; I’m driven by logic to believe this to be true. By the way, I don’t really know all the specifics of what transpired between ML and the pope; I sure wish I did know, but the info on-line is rather lacking.

Peace brother…

 

[Gaelwynn]

I am a convert from pentecostal fundamentalism to Catholicism.

The primary scripture I have heard quoted with regards to the sola scriptura view of an end of the apostic age being the end of revelation is I Cor 13:9-10. “For we know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will be done away.” (KJV) The idea expressed to me was that once the Bible (that which is perfect) had been written, the partial (the need for Holy Spirit inspired prophesy to complete the gaps in knowledge) will cease. This presents an interesting problem for the pentecostal fundamentalists, but it is used by non-pentecostal fundamentalists often. The pentecostal fundamentalists tend to refer to the end of the book of Revelation 22:18-19 where there is a warning about taking from or adding to the book. The view of some is that it is not referring to just the book of Revelation but the entire Bible.

Another argument is that the early church fathers only appealed to Scripture as their authority. They claim that the concept of Tradition did not appear until the middle of the second century and that Irenaeus and Tertullian argued that the Traditions were rooted in Scripture. The problem with this is that the New Testament writings had not been canonized or even standardized in the times referenced. This argument ignores that the oral passing of Sacred Tradition is mentioned in the New Testament (1 Cor 2:13, 1 Thes 2:13 and 2 Thes 2:15). They believe everything important for salvation was recorded and the Bible was completed at the end of the apostolic age. History is not on their side, since what was to be included as Scripture was not decided until late in the 4th century. If they are looking to the early church fathers, then they should also accept the apostolic succession written of by Clement (1st Epistle of Clement) in the 1st century and the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of Paul and John.

Paul frequently wrote of the word. It was considered the sword of spiritual warfare (Eph 6:17), a sanctifying cleanser (Eph 5:26), encouraging (Rom 15:4), living and active (Heb 4:12), source of faith (Rom 10:17), inspired and good for instruction and correction (2 Tim 3:14-17). The last verse listed refers to the Scriptures being provided so the man of God may be equipped for every good work. Some take this to mean the Scripture is enough to equip a man of God to do every good work. It does not however say that is the only equipment needed, although some draw that inference. Although he was writing of Old Testament Scriptures, today many fundamentalists believe his references include the New Testament. Often what I was taught was from Ephesians 6:10-18. The armor of God described by Paul did not include any sacraments or the Church, but was based on truth, righteousness, readiness, faith, salvation, and the word. The authority of the Church as reflected in the Council of Jerusalem in the New Testament (Acts 15 and Galatians 2) was not taught to me.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hey Richard, how you doing? You said:

Been sick, feeling better now tho.

Agreed, so sola scriptura Christians can defer to faith, in lieu of scripture alone, when it comes to a teaching, which was my original question?

Not in lieu. To the faith that is taught in scripture therefore to scripture.

No, I am not kidding. The deposit of faith (for most protestants, that would be the the 27 books of the New Testament) - did not exist as we have it today.

The deposit of faith that I am talking about is this: Rom12
3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

God has dealt to every man the measure of faith. It has nothing to do with books or even scripture and is deposited in the heart.

If Jesus Christ, Who said he would lead the church He instituted, into all truth, continues to guide the catholic church, the eastern orthodox church and all of the protestant, evangelical and non-denominational churches into all truth, then why are these separated churches divided, doctrinally speaking?

The answer to this would seem to be glaringly obvious. All these churches are not following the leader.

That does not answer the following question, but to answer your question, those catholics with unresolved differences would humbly defer to the authority of the CC or, perhaps leave the CC and join another church which agrees with their interpretation of scripture.

Again, if, for example, 5 people from different churches disagree with one another regarding certain “truth claims”, those 5 people need only defer to scripture regarding their disagreements? What if, upon evaluation, those 5 people still disagree? Who or what has the God given authority to resolve their doctrinal differences? That, to me anyway, seems to be the crux of the problem regarding sola scriptura.

Well I don’t know what your definition of SS is but mine is that all the information we need for or salvation is contained in scripture alone (sola scriptura). Really has nothing to do with a scripture mediatorial authority.

 

[SteveVH]

The answer to this would seem to be glaringly obvious. All these churches are not following the leader.

None, except the one you attend, right?

 

[joe370]

Hey Gaelwynn, I too am a convert, and I agree with what you have said. I think it is rather odd for sola scriptura advocates to appeal the early church fathers and then insist, if something is not in the bible it’s not to be believed, some, not all of course.

I am a convert from pentecostal fundamentalism to Catholicism.

The primary scripture I have heard quoted with regards to the sola scriptura view of an end of the apostic age being the end of revelation is I Cor 13:9-10. “For we know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will be done away.” (KJV) The idea expressed to me was that once the Bible (that which is perfect) had been written, the partial (the need for Holy Spirit inspired prophesy to complete the gaps in knowledge) will cease. This presents an interesting problem for the pentecostal fundamentalists, but it is used by non-pentecostal fundamentalists often. The pentecostal fundamentalists tend to refer to the end of the book of Revelation 22:18-19 where there is a warning about taking from or adding to the book. The view of some is that it is not referring to just the book of Revelation but the entire Bible.

Another argument is that the early church fathers only appealed to Scripture as their authority. They claim that the concept of Tradition did not appear until the middle of the second century and that Irenaeus and Tertullian argued that the Traditions were rooted in Scripture. The problem with this is that the New Testament writings had not been canonized or even standardized in the times referenced. This argument ignores that the oral passing of Sacred Tradition is mentioned in the New Testament (1 Cor 2:13, 1 Thes 2:13 and 2 Thes 2:15). They believe everything important for salvation was recorded and the Bible was completed at the end of the apostolic age. History is not on their side, since what was to be included as Scripture was not decided until late in the 4th century. If they are looking to the early church fathers, then they should also accept the apostolic succession written of by Clement (1st Epistle of Clement) in the 1st century and the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of Paul and John.

Paul frequently wrote of the word. It was considered the sword of spiritual warfare (Eph 6:17), a sanctifying cleanser (Eph 5:26), encouraging (Rom 15:4), living and active (Heb 4:12), source of faith (Rom 10:17), inspired and good for instruction and correction (2 Tim 3:14-17). The last verse listed refers to the Scriptures being provided so the man of God may be equipped for every good work. Some take this to mean the Scripture is enough to equip a man of God to do every good work. It does not however say that is the only equipment needed, although some draw that inference. Although he was writing of Old Testament Scriptures, today many fundamentalists believe his references include the New Testament. Often what I was taught was from Ephesians 6:10-18. The armor of God described by Paul did not include any sacraments or the Church, but was based on truth, righteousness, readiness, faith, salvation, and the word. The authority of the Church as reflected in the Council of Jerusalem in the New Testament (Acts 15 and Galatians 2) was not taught to me.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

None, except the one you attend, right?

Right!!!

 

[SteveVH]

No, I am not kidding. The deposit of faith (for most protestants, that would be the the 27 books of the New Testament) - did not exist as we have it today.

The deposit of faith existed with Sacred Tradition from Pentecost on. It existed within the life of the Church, in its preaching, its letters, its liturgies and its sacraments. Sacred Scripture is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. But the Church has always had the fullness of truth, the deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles.

 

[SteveVH]

Right!!!

 

[joe370]

Been sick, feeling better now tho.

Glad you are feeling better Richard!
Quote:
A

greed, so sola scriptura Christians can defer to faith, in lieu of scripture alone, when it comes to a teaching, which was my original question?
Not in lieu. To the faith that is taught in scripture therefore to scripture.

Nothing outside of scripture? Got it.

Quote:
No, I am not kidding. The deposit of faith (for most protestants, that would be the the 27 books of the New Testament) - did not exist as we have it today.
The deposit of faith that I am talking about is this: Rom12
3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Well, I guess you and and I have a different definition of the deposit of faith.

God has dealt to every man the measure of faith. It has nothing to do with books or even scripture and is deposited in the heart.

It has nothing to do with scripture and yet you say: Well I don’t know what your definition of SS is but mine** is that all the information we need for or salvation is contained in scripture alone **(sola scriptura).
Quote:

If Jesus Christ, Who said he would lead the church He instituted, into all truth, continues to guide the catholic church, the eastern orthodox church and all of the protestant, evangelical and non-denominational churches into all truth, then why are these separated churches divided, doctrinally speaking?
The answer to this would seem to be glaringly obvious. All these churches are not following the leader.

Wow, I did not see that one coming. All churches, regardless of denomination, are not following the leader, which is, I am assuming – Jesus?

Quote:
That does not answer the following question…

Well I don’t know what your definition of SS is but mine is that all the information we need for or salvation is contained in scripture alone (sola scriptura). Really has nothing to do with a scripture mediatorial authority.

So, according to you, no church authority needed because all churches are not following the leader, and, It has nothing to do with books or even scripture. It’s only about what is deposited in the heart.

I am not sure what to say to that, but thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut…

 

[joe370]

The deposit of faith existed with Sacred Tradition from Pentecost on. It existed within the life of the Church, in its preaching, its letters, its liturgies and its sacraments. Sacred Scripture is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. But the Church has always had the fullness of truth, the deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles.

Totally agree brother.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Well, I guess you and and I have a different definition of the deposit of faith.

Rom12
3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

You would not call this the deposit of faith?

It has nothing to do with scripture and yet you say: Well I don’t know what your definition of SS is but mine** is that all the information we need for or salvation is contained in scripture alone **(sola scriptura).

Yes, the deposit of faith as set forth in Rom,12:3 has nothing to do with scripture. We learn about it in scripture, but it is actuated by the Spirit of God in the heart.

Wow, I did not see that one coming. All churches, regardless of denomination, are not following the leader, which is, I am assuming – Jesus?

Isn’t what I said Joe. I believe that all the churches that you mentioned are not following the leader. You got a better explanation for the divergence of doctrine?

So, according to you, no church authority needed because all churches are not following the leader

Again this isn’t what I said.
Well I don’t know what your definition of SS is but mine is that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture alone (sola scriptura). If you don’t agree with this please provide what you think is necessary for our salvation outside of what is contained in scripture.
I can show you probably twenty passages, off the top of my head, of scripture that tell us what we need to know for our salvation. They all seem to center around **faith **in Jesus Christ. IMO they do not need a scripture mediatorial authority in order for them to get their message across.

and, It has nothing to do with books or even scripture.

And what has nothing to do with books or scripture? Just trying to understand what you are refering to by “it”.

It’s only about what is deposited in the heart.

Again not quite sure what you mean by “it”. If you mean “faith”. That would be correct.

I am not sure what to say to that, but thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut…

I think your little interpretation above said plenty.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7597156]
Hey, that’s cool; no worries; I don’t mind as long as the moderator doesn’t mind.

Well, Joe, I meant that, as others speak about SS, they often take it as solo scriptura, and I try to present what I believe what SS truly means, at least from my understanding.

If Jesus continues to forever guide the church He started, almost 2000 years ago, into all truth, then why the need to wait for the 11th century east - west schism to be resolved? Why can’t one of these churches be the church of Matthew 16, John 14 and 16, forever guided by the HS into all truth?

Because how am I to know that whether east or west is the one being led into all truth.

I agree; the guidance of the holy spirit is an ongoing process that started on Pentecost and continues to this day. It seems reasonable to believe that, as long as the HS is still preserving doctrinal truth and forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth - all truth (revealed truth that is) – will continue to be preserved in Jesus’ church, regardless of the individuals who leave His church and choose another church, never to impugn the devout faith and wonderful works of these other churches of course; that goes without saying!

If the ongoing discussions between our communions were to result in reconciliation I would say that the guiding into all truth would take place when the communion founded by mere man would eventually conform to the teachings of the communion founded by Jesus Christ, forever guided by the holy spirit. Notice how careful I was there. LOL…LOL…

So good tact, my friend. It seems to me that, in many issues, we speak the same truth through different expressions… That’s not to say that all of our differences are semantic, for example our understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome.

That is my point exactly!

then we agree that both of our communions are being guided.

I believe that the holy spirit can inspire and guide Christians belonging to other churches, without doubt, but the HS, the spirit of truth, does not guide all churches into all truth, for obvious reasons,unless I am missing something.

Why not? The CC says in the Catechism that, "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.“274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…”
If the Spirit is using my communion as a means of salvation, is He not guiding Lutherans into all truth, completely understood when I enter the Church Triumphant?

If, in fact, the CC has the one true authority, and I believe it does, thanks to the HS, then I agree with you, but most non-Catholics don’t agree with you or me.

certainly, it has acted in a leadership role toward unity since Vatican II. But then, if it truly is the one true Church, that should be expected.

Sure, the guidance of the Holy Spirit is still there for all of us to respond to, today, but I still believe that the HS plays a pivotal role in guiding and safeguarding truth in the church founded by Jesus, almost 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, as opposed to a church founded by someone else at a much later date; I’m driven by logic to believe this to be true. By the way, I don’t really know all the specifics of what transpired between ML and the pope; I sure wish I did know, but the info on-line is rather lacking.

And of course, Lutherans do not believe our communion was founded by a man, but as part of the universal Church, the commuion of saints, founded by Christ Himself.

Peace brother…

And also with you.

Jon

 

[JohnnyReb]

What if those similarities, (not the differences) - that make believers in all these institutions, Christians, begin to be challenged by a new crop of churches in the future? Should those similarities now become irrelevant differences? That’s what has been going on since the protestant reformation.

No. Remember, the praxis of Sola Scriptura-which I hate using, because I don’t ascribe to the definition as taught by modern evangelicals-only says that all we need for our faith and salvatation are contained in the scriptures. I really have started to believe that Sola Scriptura is not an accurate way of describing my praxis in Christianity.

Johnny, when I say one church, yes, I am referring to the one CC that existed for 1000 years, until the east west schism. When I say the churches, I am referring to all the churches including the eastern orthodox, and their offshoots, the catholic church and the 23 rites in union with the bishop of Rome and all of the other non-Catholic churches.

Ok thanks for the clarification.

Well, I wish there was only one church in the world today, but sadly, that is not the case.

This is where Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants will have to agree to disagree. As one author put it, “I once was told by an Orthodox priest that he could not be sure of the fate of the worlds nearly 1.7 billion Catholics and Protestants on judgement day.” Why? because they do not belong to the OC?

Sorry, not following you? All churches, regardless of denomination, were instituted by man, and possess an authoritative teaching office, including the church instituted by the God-Man - Jesus, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost.

Not sure what you mean here.

So, the differences don’t matter, and therefore doctrinal truth, regarding those doctrinal differences do not matter; I think I understand your position. The Gospel message is the faith delivered once for all to the saints, but it is, according to sola scriptura the right of each and every sola scriptura saint to interpret the gospel message as they see fit - correct?

It doesn’t boil down to what our “rights” are. Like I said before, it depends on the nature of the disagreement. I discuss this some more below. Doctrinal uniformity is not a requirement for Christian unity. At my local parish there are 5 point Calvinists and those of a more reformed bent, some cradle Episcopalians that grew tired of the liberal stuff of that body, those who are more Anglo-Catholic and those who are more Charismatic in orientation. But we are united in purpose as a parish despite these differences.

So, doctrines such as the Eucharist (unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you) - is just inconsequential fun stuff to argue about?

Good question, this is an excellent example. The Catholic church teaches the dogma of transubstantiation. The Orthodox reject this, but believe in real presence. Lutherans believe in a form of real presence. Many Anglicans do as well. The majority of Christians do. Christ is genuinely present in the Eucharist and at the bare minimum, partaking represents a spiritual encounter with Christ in it.

But the doctrine of transubstantiation is not clearly supported in John 6. Real presence is what is supported by the text. The CC relies alot on tradition, its teaching authority, and the application of the Aristotalian thought by Aquinas in formulating the doctrine. They are welcome to believe it, but it belongs to the realm of theological speculation on how Christ is present in the Eucharist (as is consubstantiation et al). There is no scriptural warrant to say that the faithful are bound to believe it, however, to be saved. Believing it to be true does not put the Catholic outside the body of Christ.

Some Christians take a purely symbolic view of the Eucharist. Such a position is ahistorical and did not appear until Zwingli taught it. When these individuals question real presence, you and I point them to John 6. Sure they have a set of arguments they use to prove their point. I would point out the fact that their belief is not held by the body of Christ historically. At the end of the day, if they still celebrate it, its fine with. I would hope of the Holy Spirit would open their eyes to their error. When I examine our similarities and differences, I would fine that we share far more in common than different. I guess this is why I am not totally “Sola Scriptura”.

Another good example of this is 5 point Calvinism and its teachings on predestination. The Bible teaches were predestined to be saved, but it never lays out how. Both Calvin and Arminius attempted to explain how God has predestined us and came to different conclusions. Some of their followers are very dogmatic about their beliefs. Neither side rejects the truth that we are predestined in Christ.

I tend to read the faith through the historical creeds of the church like the Nicene Creed. It was put together by the church-and many Lutherans, Anglicans et al accept the authority of the early ecumenical councils. If a teaching violates one of those prinicipals, Christians should reject it.

 

[joe370]

JohnnyReb…

No. Remember, the praxis of Sola Scriptura-which I hate using, because I don’t ascribe to the definition as taught by modern evangelicals-only says that all we need for our faith and salvatation are contained in the scriptures. I really have started to believe that Sola Scriptura is not an accurate way of describing my praxis in Christianity.

Okay, but what if those similarities, that you mentioned (not the differences) - begin to be challenged by a new crop of churches in the future? Should those similarities now become irrelevant differences, just as is the case in the protestant sphere regarding, this is my body vs this is a symbol of my body?

Not sure what you mean here.

I guess what I mean is: All protestant churches, regardless of denomination, were founded by men either in the 16th, 17th…21st century and all of those churches possess an authoritative teaching office – correct?

It doesn’t boil down to what our “rights” are. Like I said before, it depends on the nature of the disagreement. I discuss this some more below. Doctrinal uniformity is not a requirement for Christian unity.

Leaving the Catholic Church out of the discussion for the moment, could you tell me what has divided Christianity, since the protestant reformation, if not doctrinal differences?

At my local parish there are 5 point Calvinists and those of a more reformed bent, some cradle Episcopalians that grew tired of the liberal stuff of that body, those who are more Anglo-Catholic and those who are more Charismatic in orientation. But we are united in purpose as a parish despite these differences.

Doctrinal truth matters naught? I think I understand.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Well, Joe, I meant that, as others speak about SS, they often take it as solo scriptura, and I try to present what I believe what SS truly means, at least from my understanding.

Oops, my bad. I understand. I have finally given up attempting to find a consensus regarding the practice of sola scriptura. It seems rather hopeless. No matter what I say about SS some SS proponent eventually tells me I am misrepresenting SS.

Because how am I to know that whether east or west is the one being led into all truth.

Well, we know one immutable fact, if scripture and history can be trusted: Jesus continues to forever guide the church He started, almost 2000 years ago, into all truth, and we know that there was an 11th century schism that divided His one church, and the breach has not been mended - yet, and, logically speaking, one of these churches continues to be the church of Matthew 16, John 14:16 and 16:13, forever guided by the HS into all truth.

Jon, let’s say a person cannot decide which one of these 2 churches continues to be led into all truth until the end of time. Why would a church, other than one of these two churches, be a more viable option, regarding truth and membership?

So good tact, my friend. It seems to me that, in many issues, we speak the same truth through different expressions… That’s not to say that all of our differences are semantic, for example our understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome.

Agreed. One thing I have learned is the fact that the EOC and the CC both speak the same truth through different expressions, and since meeting you I have discovered the same is true regarding most Lutheran churches and the Catholic Church.

Jon you said:

*“The guidance is still there, isn’t it? It wouldn’t stop simply because people didn’t respond to it.”

“If the Spirit is using my communion as a means of salvation, is He not guiding Lutherans into all truth, completely understood when I enter the Church Triumphant?”
*

We both agree that truth is not relative and that the same truth regarding any one doctrine can be expressed via different expressions.

How can the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, Who, according to the bible is forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth - guide the CC and the EOC to believe that the Eucharist, for example, is a genuine sacrifice, (one truth) - guide the Lutheran church to believe that the Eucharist is not a genuine sacrifice, (an opposing truth) - and guide the Baptist church to believe that the Eucharist is merely symbolic (and yet another opposing truth)? Are these 3 communions being guided into all truth?

Why not? The CC says in the Catechism that, "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.“274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…”

I totally agree that many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church!!! For me it was simple; I wanted to belong to the church founded by God; that way I felt confidant that I was as close to the fullness of truth as I possibly could be. The spirit of truth cannot guide multiple communions into all truth, unless those communions share the same truth, logically speaking - right?

certainly, it has acted in a leadership role toward unity since Vatican II. But then, if it truly is the one true Church, that should be expected.

If one believes that the CC is not the church founded by Jesus, then why would one want to belong to the CC, or trust what the CC teaches?

And of course, Lutherans do not believe our communion was founded by a man, but as part of the universal Church, the commuion of saints, founded by Christ Himself.

I still don’t understand that perspective. If I do, as Martin Luther did, and start a new movement that will eventually take on the form of a new church, and establish a following, can I rightfully call my new church the church founded by Christ?

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7599471]
Oops, my bad. I understand. I have finally given up attempting to find a consensus regarding the practice of sola scriptura. It seems rather hopeless. No matter what I say about SS some SS proponent eventually tells me I am misrepresenting SS.

Sort of like my confusion about which Church that makes the claim “one true Church” is really it. As far as you misrepresenting it, I think you often speak in your threads of what some protestants think sola scriptura is. So, in that sense, you are not misrepresenting. I’m just making sure the lurkers know that not all of us take that view.

Well, we know one immutable fact, if scripture and history can be trusted: Jesus continues to forever guide the church He started, almost 2000 years ago, into all truth, and we know that there was an 11th century schism that divided His one church, and the breach has not been mended - yet, and, logically speaking, one of these churches continues to be the church of Matthew 16, John 14:16 and 16:13, forever guided by the HS into all truth.

And the Reformation further caused division in His Church. You see, Joe, I view the “guided by the Holy Spirit” phrase as far more long-term. And I view the Church as much more than one institution.

Jon, let’s say a person cannot decide which one of these 2 churches continues to be led into all truth until the end of time. Why would a church, other than one of these two churches, be a more viable option, regarding truth and membership?

Why move with a 50-50 chance of still being wrong? The HP uses all our communions to bring salvation, understanding Christ’s desire that we be one.

Agreed. One thing I have learned is the fact that the EOC and the CC both speak the same truth through different expressions, and since meeting you I have discovered the same is true regarding most Lutheran churches and the Catholic Church.

It is what I have discovered as well.

More later.
Jon

 

[JohnnyReb]

JohnnyReb…

Okay, but what if those similarities, that you mentioned (not the differences) - begin to be challenged by a new crop of churches in the future? Should those similarities now become irrelevant differences, just as is the case in the protestant sphere regarding, this is my body vs this is a symbol of my body?

Is this the same question you asked before? If you would like to discuss my response given previously, I welcome it.

I guess what I mean is: All protestant churches, regardless of denomination, were founded by men either in the 16th, 17th…21st century and all of those churches possess an authoritative teaching office – correct?

Well yes and no. They have authorities that guide the direction of the denomination, and formulate their teachings/doctrines, give those teachings to their members, and for the purposes of organization and accountability. These groups do not claim to be infallible, so they do not have one in the same sense as the Catholic church. In the Assemblies of God-a group I was once a part of, its the General Council of the Assemblies of God.

Leaving the Catholic Church out of the discussion for the moment, could you tell me what has divided Christianity, since the protestant reformation, if not doctrinal differences?

I said before that all divisions boil down to differing interpretations in regards to sacramental application, ecclesiaology and interpretations of soteriology. Christians have always had to fight divisions among us. Even the Corinthians as early as the 50s AD said “I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, I follow Peter…” Doctrinal differences should not stand in the way of Christian unity. We often can be like the Pharisees who were good at straining out gnats but swallowing camels.

Doctrinal truth matters naught? I think I understand.

No. Thats not what I said. It depends on the nature of the disagreement. When others deny a major point of the creed, (ie the incarnation, the trinity) that is when the real problem occurs. Since it was formed by an ecumenical council, the creed can show us who is in and who is outside of the body of Christ. How was the creed formed, by the church, interpreting the scriptures, guided by the Holy Spirit.