Okay…here is easy one.
Spoken by a true Christian
Lets say Joe Bob (making this guy up) knew Matthew the author of the Gospel of matthew, and Matthew told him something that he didn’t write in scripture but still had some significance to it. Did Joe Bob hear something that is inspired from hearing it by the mouth of the person who wrote inspired scripture?
Still afraid to answer our questions? Still afraid to think critically?
This is a trenchant point, UofT.
But here is your problem. Your “accountability” is not to “scripture”. It is to your personal or manmade church’s fallible interpretation of scripture.
True. We accept the early councils and creeds. It is safe to say that the early councils were authoritative ,though not infallibile.
Agreed, yet the early Church agreed to councils, not single individuals.
And what of the Orthodox, who also make this claim? Are they not also the Church of Christ and of the Apostles? And if they are, whom should I believe?
We did. It’s the opening post of this thread and you have never answered it, and now you’ve gone and got yourself banned.
I’m honored by your kind words.We did. It’s the opening post of this thread and you have never answered it, and now you’ve gone and got yourself banned.
I don’t see anything that would be all that problematic on here, so that tells me you must have had something out of line to say to our mod. Shame on you. CAF is more tolerant of opposing opinion than most n-C forums I have seen and the staff go out of their way to be even handed and objective with members, regardless of their religion, so apparently you shot yourself in the foot.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h...s/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/failstamp.png
Hopefully Poochie won’t follow your example.
Why can’t every n-C on here be as cool as JonNC. Props to you my friend for your style and content. You are much appreciated.
This is one of the many places where sola scriptura theology falls apart. Because you see the bible as final arbiter, you are forcing scripture to be a witness to itself (circular logic).
Not accurate. The early Church indeed depended on the Bishop of Rome. See Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians or even the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Yes, it was a “council” but Peter made the decision and the remainder “kept silent.”
Methinks you are clouding up the discussion. I can have this debate with an Orthodox but you are not Orthodox, are you? In other words, the answer to the question does not impact what we were discussing. It is a red herring.
Gosh, I don’t see how this relates to what I posted. I ws talking about the early councils.
In neither case are these relevent to SS. Since SS is simply the practice of using scripture as the final norm. As we can see, throuought Christendom there are various determinations was to what books are or are not used to determine doctrine. While Lutherans do not ignore the D-C’s for instance, neither do we use them to detemine doctrine.
When did i admit the Bible was wrong? It is, though, the difference I believe here, as I see the Church as far more than an institution, particularly since it also iincludes the Church Triumphant, and if you wish, the Church Suffering. It could be said that the Church Militant is authoritative, since there are various divisions of it, even dating prior to the Reformation.
Totally accurate. No one in the early Church accepted The Bishop of rome as soley infallibilt (ex cathedra). The other sees of the Church still don’t.
Not at all. It speaks to the claim of more than one Church being The Church.
And yet the Magisterium of the early Church is divided. WHo now has that mantle? And based on what?
Jon, the reality is that the Faith Tradition you use is the final norm because that is the “decoder ring” you use to understand scripture. You see, when Catholics interpret scripture, we understand the statements that say we are saved by faith to be refering to the fact that you can enter the state of grace by being baptized and that no works are required, simply consent to do this. We also recognized that you can fall from grace so that being saved can indeed be temporary. When you read the exact same verses, you understand them differently because of your Lutheran faith tradition. So its not the bible that is the norm, but how you have been trained to interpret it. For those that don’t adhere to a tradition at all, there is no norming associated with scripture, simply the beliefs of the individual, who can mold scripture to fit what he wants it to say.
Well, the problem here is that you don’t recognize that the magesterium, and not all the individuals, speaks for the church. It is the magesterium, and particularly the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Spirit.
Of course people in the early church accepted the infallability and primacy of the Pope, other wise the Catholic Church would no longer exist. You do realize that even when the Eastern Churches broke from the CAtholic Church in the great schism (30% of the church), 30% of their churches then broke from the Orthodox and stayed in Communion with the Catholic Church - they are the 21 Eastern Rite churches.
Jon, the fact is there is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. You recite this each week in the Creed, right? If you are validly baptized, you are a member of that church, although you are in less than perfect communion with it. The same is true of the Orthodox. And remember, that is a choice that each individual makes, from you to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Church will accept anyone who wants to be in communion with it and is working to increase that level of communion through both personal conversions and institutional outreach (like to the Anglicans recently)
The Magesterium is led by the Pope. It is not divided. Simply, people have decided to leave it. Remember, in John 6, when the disciples left Jesus when they couldn’t accept the teaching of the Eucharist? People have all kinds of reasons to follow their own paths. If it happened to Jesus, just after he walked on water and fed 5000 men with 5 loaves and 2 fish, it most certainly will happen to his church as well. But we all will be held accountable for our decisions.
Hi Paul,
In some instances we do see thing differently, although your example isn’t one, ISTM.
Well, again, we see SS as the basis of hermeunetics, which is done by the church, not the individual.
Are the Bishops of orthodoxy protected, as well?
Paul, that’s not the way Nicea, Canon 6 reads. I’m not discountingn the importance of the role the Pope plays, even today, in the Church, but I do question the idea of universal jurisdiction (clearly not in the early councils) and infallibility ex cathedra (also not in the early councils).
Yes.
Yes, and that is my point, though I think my communion with the OHCAC is as perfect as any baptized.
I understand your perspective
I am happy you said this. I completely agree.
Well, the Lutheran Confessions, not Luther the man. But, as you mentioned, we also trace our Tradition to the early councils and creeds.
But Jon, don’t you see that Tarls’ question is indeed very, very relevant? It puts your definition of SS (using Scripture as the final norm) as a self-refuting norm. You do not use “scripture as the final norm” because you defer to the Church to discern for you what first constitutes Scripture.
Catholics do not use the DCs to “determine doctrine” either. The DCs confirm that which was given to the apostles through the kerygma.
Of course I defer to the Church, who has the teaching authority. Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church, not me.
Well, gosh. That sounds likewhat the confessions say.
Interesting. I have not heard this said before.
Actually, Jon, I sadly report that this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said. We do not judge our dogmas according to the “prophetic and apostolic Scriptures”. Rather, the Scriptures are that which confirmed and affirmed the kerygma–that which was already being professed and proclaimed by the Church.
Oh, they had the teachings of the Apostles. Let’s remember that Paul’s epistles were letters written down. for example. But the thing the early Church didn’t have was dramatic schism, where within the Tradition of the Church there was disagreement.
What confirms what, then, PR?
The Scriptures confirm the paradosis.