If Protestantism Is True

[Nicea325]

Jesus and the apostles knew what the OT Canon was. Their OT Canon had long since already been closed.

Tell me what year,where and by whose authority it was closed? And please tell us what books had “long” been closed?

 

[benjohnson]

How is it not in conflict with SS? Sacred Tradition is viewed by Catholics as another channel of God’s Word.

You are good with that?

Of course I’m delighted with that! If it wasn’t for tradition, I wound’t know how to worship.

I still maintain that Scripture provides all you need for salvation, but there’s much more to worshiping God.

This is very Catholic!

That’s kind of you to say. I pray that in God’s time we will commune together. For me, the only dogmatic stumbling block that I can see is Papal Ineffability.

Sola Scriptura is a problem for Catholics because it denies one channel of the Word of God.

I would say that SS does not deny any other channels, only that other channels are subjugated to it.

Ideally - there should never be a conflict with SS. Any true dogma would by definition be constant with God’s Scripture, as God is consistent.

 

[PRmerger]

The people of God which refers to individual believers together. It is not limited to Bishops as you stated.

I don’t think you understand the repercussions of what you’re proposing.

If you’re saying that any of the Christians–even if they weren’t bishops–could grab one of the 400 extant Christian texts and discern for themselves, without the authority of the Church, what was inspired, then you’re going to have a big, big problem.

You’re going to have to tell us why some of these early Christians decided the Shepherd of Hermas was inspired, but that you reject that text now.

Why? If some of these early Christians discerned it to be inspired?

They were collected because they are inspired Scripture. They are not made Scripture because the church says they are.

Right.

And the only way you know which ones were inspired and which ones weren’t is because the CC told you so.

 

[Nicea325]

I answered your questions. I ignored any questions that would basically misrepresents or misunderstand my position or assume your own conclusion of something that I reject. As far as double standars on private judgement. You provided me your own interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-18 yet you claim to reject Sola Scripture. You gave me your own mere opinion of that passage and not the offical interpretation of the RCC on it. Enough said.

And you also have given us your private interpretation…enough said! And by using 2 Tim 3:14-18 actually contradicts Sola Scriptura. At one point you quoted verse 17 which reads:

that the man of God may be complete.

Your argument easily falls apart. Tell me how is one to determine who is the “man of God,” and who isn’t? Case in point, an Presbyterian pastor will believe in baptizing infants, while a Baptist pastor will be against it. Strangely, both claim to support their views from biblical evidence. So which of the two would be the “Man of God” and who determines who is or isn’t the “Man of God?”

There are serious problems with your man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura as I have told you repeatedly. No where does Scripture explicitly state is the sole rule or supreme…no where! That is your injection of poor biblical exegesis. Second, no where does Jesus explicitly teach Scripture is supreme…no where! Again,your injection of poor biblical exegesis. Third, historically Sola Scriptura was no where to be taught or even mentioned at ANY ecumenical council as a sound doctrine,if so…show me one ecumenical defending Sola Scriptura as being supreme?

 

[PRmerger]

That is so wrong. It’s internal and external evidence speaks volumes againist it.

Could you give an example of the internal and external evidence that told you that the Protoevangelium of James is not inspired?

And are you going to tell me that you’ve reviewed that book and came to the conclusion yourself?

I reject that gnostic writing because of it’s clear cut errors in it. It was not based on what the church said about it at all.

Right. And you know that the gnostic writings are not inspired because the conflict with the ORAL testimony of the early Christians–that is, you are going by Sacred Tradition, NOT Scripture.

Its internal and external evidence of it was which lead me to believe Scripture is inspired by God. That is its quality and nature of which makes it special above every other book that exist.

Could you give some examples of this internal and external evidence?

That is true for you but not for me. My views are based on it’s internal and external evidence. The Gospel of Thomas is a very heretical gnostic writing.

And you only know it’s gnostic because the Church rejected gnosticism.

The Gospel of Thomas was not written by an apostle

What verse in Scripture tells you that for something to be theopneustos it had to be written by an Apostle?

Chapter and verse, please.

My conclusions were based on the internal and external evidence. I did not at all depend on the claims of the Roman See.

Could you please provide examples of this internal and external evidence?

I know due to the internal and external evidence and I judged it.

What internal evidence did you examine here?
What external evidence did you consider?

By Catholic Church you are refering to the Roman See only. I view the Catholic Church as embracing all Christians on the earth. I do not limit the Catholic Church to be defined and limited to the Roman See.

That reminds me of a quote by St. Augustine:

“so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.—”

Scripture is not God Himself. I do not believe that God is on paper. But rather it is viewed as his inspired written word. It is God’s Word in written form and that is His way of communication to us. When I pray I do not pray to Scripture itself I pray to God whom is in heaven itself.

Amen!

Then again I am not the one who is attacking the realiability of Scripture to the people of God.

I am only making you squirm about your tacit acknowledgm*ent of the authority to which you submit, *each and every time you quote the Scriptures.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Because of the authority of the Catholic Church

.

Chafer DTS:
An empty claim that can never be proven . The chuch is a mere wittness to Scripture . It does not claim to have authority over it. Very bad conception of Scripture that you have. I also reject your use of the words Catholic Church. Those word were used of the church as a whole and never limited to the Roman See. I have the creeds and the church fathers on this issue.

Totally false! If the CC did not determine the canonicity,then tell me WHAT church and the name of the men who were NOT Catholic? It can be proven…just do your homework. The problem you present is that you pit Scripture against the Church,typical Protestant dichotomy:either/or. Scripture is very clear Jesus founded HIS CHURCH…not the Bible. The Bible is a product of the Church and not vice versa. Your argument is basically saying: The church developed out of the Bible. Wrong! The Bible developed from the Apostolic Tradition of the Church.

No offense,but you really need to study church history and the history of the Bible.

 

[Nicea325]

The council of Nicea historically speaking is listed as the first ecumentical council of the church held in order to contradict and refute Arianism. This is conceded by Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Protestantism.

Saying it is wrong does not make it so. Appeal was made specifically to Scripture confirm what they had discussed. James used Amos 9 as his evidence for the conclusion in the matter. They all discussed the matter specifically Peter and Paul to give insight to what was going on in their ministry. Scripture is supreme as I said. That was displayed there contextually and exegetically. Issues were discussed and opinions stated and then a conclusion based on Scripture which confirmed their views. The Law and the Prophets. was their Scripture as individual NT books were being written and added to the rule of faith as inspired Scripture. Scripture is Scripture in it’s nature and quality. You appear to try and set forth a contrast between the Old and New Testament when that is unnecessary to do.

They get their " doctrine " from Scripture right ? Are elders invent unknown doctrines that no one else knows about ? The word " doctrine " is stated in that verse right ? Didakalia is instruction or doctrine of which the people of God are to learn from Elders who teach them.The elders get this instruction or doctrine from Scripture. Paul used Scripture as proof for his view of elders of being suported in those verses. Thus Scripture is clearly seen as the rule of faith there being appealed to.

Strawman. I dont hold Scripture is the " sole rule " as you stated. It is the sole infallible rule of faith. I do see lesser rules of faith such as creeds and tradition and councils. Try and deal with what I believe and not resort to strawmen please.

Jesus used Scripture to combat the temptations and the lies of Satan. Jesus appealed to Scripture in this. Jesus by his exampled followed God’s Word in overcoming temptation from Satan. " It is written " shows His direct reply to Satan from Scripture itself. No appeal is made to a so called unwritten doctrinal oral tradition but to the Old Testament itself. Jesus taught Scripture as our rule of faith.

During that time they had both the oral word of God and the written word of God. Your question appears to create a strawman or misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. What is claimed is now since the time of the apostles we have only God’s Word contained in written form that being inspired Scripture. We are not presently being given new divine revelation outside of Scripture. In other words, we have no prophets or apostles today. Basically God’s Word is strictly speaking found in His written word the Scriptures now.

They only confirmed what was already in Scripture. They did not invent new or unknown doctrines. The church is fallible otherwise you cant explain to me the heretical Arian Councils during the time of Nicea. We have the sure word in Scripture. Scripture is infallible. God allowed fallible men to exist since Adam and Eve. The promise of salvation is based on the fact that God cannot lie. Since Scripture is God’s written word it by it’s nature has the authority of God of which there is no higher authority.

I’ll make this easy on you. Please provide ONE verse where Jesus teaches: Scripture supreme.

BTW: If Scripture is supreme and vital for our salvation,how odd that Jesus Himself does not command ALL 12 to write as they walked and lived with Him for three years?

 

[benjohnson]

And the only way you know which ones were inspired and which ones weren’t is because the CC told you so.

When I view history, I don’t think of those who contemplated, prayed, and compiled the scripture as “Roman Catholic” - I think of them as “Catholic.” We Lutherans confess that we are catholic, it’s just that bad things happened in the 1500’s and we now find ourselves no longer in communion with Rome.

 

[submariner2]

I believe, just like you, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, because the Catholic Church discerned for me, and for you, what belonged in the Bible. That’s the ONLY way you know what is inspired, Yendis.

PR,

The early church accepted the books of the NT by consensus based on the Rule of Faith. The Catholic church did not canonize it until Trent. There was scripture being used in the first century yet not canonized. In fact if you look at 2 Peter you will find the author referring to Pauls letters as “scripture.” No mention of a Catholic church.

Rob

 

[Nicea325]

PR,

The early church accepted the books of the NT by consensus based on the Rule of Faith. The Catholic church did not canonize it until Trent. There was scripture being used in the first century yet not canonized. In fact if you look at 2 Peter you will find the author referring to Pauls letters as “scripture.” No mention of a Catholic church.

Rob

That is false. The CC did not canonize it at Trent. Trent merely re-affirmed what already had been settled centuries. And why? Because of the Protestant reformers questioning certain books. Second,why do Protestants expect the Bible to mention the Catholic Church by name? Does the Bible name the selected books as canon? Does the Bible name doctrine of the Trinity by its name: Trinitarian doctrine?

Why would Paul need to mention the church by name? That is a Protestant proposition due to fact there exist thousands of denominations. If Paul does not mention the CC,then he evidently does not mention ANY Protestant church.

 

[benjohnson]

I’ll make this easy on you. Please provide ONE verse where Jesus teaches: Scripture supreme.

BTW: If Scripture is supreme and vital for our salvation,how odd that Jesus Himself does not command ALL 12 to write as they walked and lived with Him for three years?

As Scripture is God’s Law and Gospel, we are therefore are obedient to it just as if we were before God. We don’t deny other God given authorities, we only demand that those authorities are subject to God’s word. The reasoning is that other authorities have from time to time been more susceptible to the whims of man, while the word of God as written in scripture is by definition reliable. Simply, God’s word is God’s word, and I’m tankful to have a written copy of it.

My poor answer your second question: the Scripture that was written down is the same Scripture that the 12 preached. I am thankful that that it was written down, as it’s saved me from much heresy given my willful nature.

I think we may be having a “crossed debate” - I may be defending Sola Scriptura, and perhaps you’re questioning Solo Scripture. I don’t defend Solo Scriptura as I think it cuts off too much that is God given and it can leave too much to personal interpretation.

 

[Nicea325]

benjohnson;

As Scripture is God’s Law and Gospel, we are therefore are obedient to it just as if we were before God.

Yes as Christians we ought to obey God’s Words written down,but Scripture is not the only source of God’s voice.

We don’t deny other God given authorities, we only demand that those authorities are subject to God’s word.

Which is the Church along with Tradition and Scripture. Scripture does not teach Christ church as secondary or under the written Words of God.

The reasoning is that other authorities have from time to time been more susceptible to the whims of man, while the word of God as written in scripture is by definition reliable. Simply, God’s word is God’s word, and I’m tankful to have a written copy of it.

Men are weak and precisely why Christ founded His church for the sinners. Jesus did not hand out Bibles at Pentecost.

My poor answer your second question: the Scripture that was written down is the same Scripture that the 12 preached. I am thankful that that it was written down, as it’s saved me from much heresy given my willful nature.

But the argument revolves around the premise that Scripture is supreme. Again,where does God Himself teach Scripture is supreme? I have yet to read a single verse even suggesting such a false premise.

I think we may be having a “crossed debate” - I may be defending Sola Scriptura, and perhaps you’re questioning Solo Scripture. I don’t defend Solo Scriptura as I think it cuts off too much that is God given and it can leave too much to personal interpretation.

Unfortunately,no amount of rebuttals will change the facts of Christian history: Sola Scriptura is a late innovation.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

. Totally false! If the CC did not determine the canonicity,then tell me WHAT church and the name of the men who were NOT Catholic? It can be proven…just do your homework. The problem you present is that you pit Scripture against the Church,typical Protestant dichotomy:either/or. Scripture is very clear Jesus founded HIS CHURCH…not the Bible. The Bible is a product of the Church and not vice versa. Your argument is basically saying: The church developed out of the Bible. Wrong! The Bible developed from the Apostolic Tradition of the Church.

No offense,but you really need to study church history and the history of the Bible.

Thank you for misrepresenting me and then making false statements about me. First, the Old Testament existed 300 years before the start of the " Catholic Church " which in this sense the body of Christ which started at Pentecost. So it is not correct to claim the church itself determine when this was not the case with the Old Testament. It is God Himself who determined the Canon since He is the one who inspired each individual author. Do you really think the church plays God on this ? I expresslly stated it was the people of God who collected what God inspired in what we presently know as Scripture both the Old and New Testament. Secondly, are you using the term " Protestant " as a sluar at me ? My entire argument was that Roman See never gave us Scripture. Evidently you equate Roman Catholicism as being the only Catholic Church which is a position I totally reject and is rejected by the Creeds of the church such as the Apostle’s Creed. Thirdly, I never pit Scripture againist the church. I merely contend that the church is bound by Scripture for doctrine and for correction if it commits doctrinal error. Scripture is infallible whereas in contrast the church is fallible. Scripture is Supreme rule of faith whereas the church is a lesser rule of faith like the Creeds of the church. They are to be received and believed so long as they each affirm that which is in Scripture. Forthly, I do agree that Jesus founded His church at Pentecost with the formulation of the Body of Christ which is the universal church and also the local visible church in which the church of Jerusalem was the very first local church. The Holy Spirit inspired Scripture when it was written. This should not even be an issue yet you and others make it so when we each agree with on at least 66 books and only disagree on 6 Apocrypha books status on if they are rule of faith books for doctrine or are they books for rule of edification. I have tradition on my side as far as the Old Testament Canon is concerned. Only by ignoring men like Saint Jerome and others is your position even possible. The church was born out of the Word of God which is eternal. Low views of Scripture always results in positions that you embrace. I happen to have history on my side. I am not the one who does historical revisionism. I have standard church history books on my side. I do have good books on the history of the Bible which deals with facts and not fiction. I am the one who has church fathers on my side when it comes to the Old Testament Canon. Yet this gets by passed and ignored. Usually the church fathers that side with me get attacked. Yet these same people claim apostolic tradition and the church fathers for themselves. I dont get this ?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

I’ll make this easy on you. Please provide ONE verse where Jesus teaches: Scripture supreme.

BTW: If Scripture is supreme and vital for our salvation,how odd that Jesus Himself does not command ALL 12 to write as they walked and lived with Him for three years?

That is like me asking you to cite me 1 verse which says God is a Trinity ? See the logical fallacy you are using now ? The Supremacy of Scripture is proven by it’s nature and quality. It is God breathed ! The burden of proof is on others who that there are other equal rules of faith. Scripture was written so that we may have come to believe that Jesus is the Christ and that by believing we may have eternal life in Him. Evidently you ignore this principle that the Apostle John set forth with regard to the Gospel of John in John 20:31. Guess Scripture is no important in your view of salvation but is is very important in my own views.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for misrepresenting me and then making false statements about me. First, the Old Testament existed 300 years before the state of the " Catholic Church " which in this sense the body of Christ which started at Pentecost. So it is not correct to claim the church itself determine when this was not the case with the Old Testament. It is God Himself who determined the Canon since He is the one who inspired each individual author. Do you really think the church plays God on this ? I expresslly stated it was the people of God who collected what God inspired in what we presently know as Scripture both the Old and New Testament. Secondly, are you using the term " Protestant " as a sluar at me ? My entire argument was that Roman Catholic never gave us Scripture. Evidently you equate Roman Catholicism as being the only Catholic Church which is a position I totally reject and is rejected by the Creeds of the church such as the Apostle’s Creed. Thirdly, I never pit Scripture againist the church. I merely contend that the church is bound by Scripture for doctrine and for correction if it commits doctrinal error. Scripture is infallible whereas in contrast the church is fallible. Scripture is Supreme rule of faith whereas the church is a lesser rule of faith like the Creeds of the church. They are to be received and believed so long as they each affirm that which is in Scripture. Forhtly, I do agree that Jesus founded His church at Pentecost with the formulation of the Body of Christ which is the universal church and also the local visible church in which the church of Jerusalem was the very first local church. The Holy Spirit inspired Scripture when it was written. This should not even be an issue yet you and others make it so when we each agree with on at least 66 books and only disagree on 6 Apocrypha books status on if they are rule of faith books for doctrine or are they books for rule of edification. I have tradition on my side as far as the Old Testament Canon is concerned. Only by ignoring men like Saint Jerome. The church was born out of the Word of God which is eternal. Low views of Scripture always results in positions that you embrace. I happen to have history on my side. I am not the one who does historical revisionism. I have standard church history books on my side. I do have good books on the history of the Bible which deals with facts and not fiction. I am the one who has church fathers on my side when it comes to the Old Testament Canon. Yet this gets by passed and ignored. Usually the church fathers that side with me get attacked. Yet these same people claim apostolic tradition and the church fathers for themselves. I dont get this ?

Can you please, Chafer, cite one internal evidence you’ve considered and one external evidence you’ve considered that tells you that the Book of Hebrews is inspired?

Or is the only way that you know it’s inspired is because the Catholic Church told you it was inspired?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Can you please, Chafer, cite one internal evidence you’ve considered and one external evidence you’ve considered that tells you that the Book of Hebrews is inspired?

Or is the only way that you know it’s inspired is because the Catholic Church told you it was inspired?

Do you believe in the same exact New Testament Canon as I do or do I have to view you as an atheist or an agnostic who is attacking Scripture ? I deny that it is because of the Roman See. That is your position and not mine. DONT PROJECT YOUR THEOLOGICAL VIEWS ON ME WHEN THEY BELONG TO YOU. If we already agree on the NT Canon than what you are doing is what is called a red herring logical fallacy.

 

[benjohnson]

Yes as Christians we ought to obey God’s Words written down,but Scripture is not the only source of God’s voice.

I agree with this, only that I would add that for us, Scripture is the only infallible source. I understand that we disagree on this.

Which is the Church along with Tradition and Scripture. Scripture does not teach Christ church as secondary or under the written Words of God.

Men are weak and precisely why Christ founded His church for the sinners.

I think we’ll have to disagree on this one. My reasoning is that as everything is under God, then certainly men and church are under the word of god. I understand that you view Church as always true, I only wish that I could share your estimation.

If only the Church was always correct, then we wouldn’t be having this debate at all and we would be together. But sadly, in my estimation, the Church hasn’t always behaved correctly. I’m not however saying Luther or Lutherans are any better though - our church is defiantly not always correct.

But the argument revolves around the premise that Scripture is supreme. Again,where does God Himself teach Scripture is supreme? I have yet to read a single verse even suggesting such a false premise.

If you view scripture as a ‘book’, of course God hasn’t told us to follow it. If you view scripture as ‘the word of God’, then you can see why such an admonition isn’t necessary, as we are called to follow and praise God.

Unfortunately,no amount of rebuttals will change the facts of Christian history: Sola Scriptura is a late innovation.

I think that’s probably the difference that make the distinction - I view scripture as the word of God. I will do my best to follow too, and pray that I come close to how the apostles followed.

…

All that said, I completely understand your frustrations with Sola Scriptura - I’m frustrated too by it. It leaves me with too much ability to have my own interpretations. And it can degenerate to Solo Scriptura all too easily.

But I don’t think Sola Ecclesia is perfect either - that too also subject to private interpretations as we are seeing with SSPX and their interpretations of “Authentic Magisterium.” In addition, even if we all commit to Sola Ecclesia, we would still have the problem of private interpretations as we could flit from parish to parish based on whim and personal preference.

If I may, what we need is something perfect to bind our consciousness, and I pray that we look ‘through and past’ our respective lenses of Scripture and Church, and are able to bind ourselves to God in spite of these problems.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
I’ll make this easy on you. Please provide ONE verse where Jesus teaches: Scripture supreme.

BTW: If Scripture is supreme and vital for our salvation,how odd that Jesus Himself does not command ALL 12 to write as they walked and lived with Him for three years?

Chafer DTS:

That is like me asking you to cite me 1 verse which says God is a Trinity ? See the logical fallacy you are using now ?

Weak rebuttal and my premise is very logical. First, the doctrine of the Trinity is implicitly stated in the NT and the Bible clearly shows that the Father,Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. Likewise, Apostolic Tradition was also used to rebuke the Arian heresy,not just the BIBLE ALONE-a fact! The issue at hand is not about if the** term is used or mention **in scripture,moreover, it is about a doctrinal issue and studying scripture to ensure it is taught,implicity or explicitly.Now unfortunately that is not the case for SS because it is nowhere taught or said implicitly or explicitly no matter how much you deny it. More important, it no where declares it is supreme and everything else is secondary.

The Supremacy of Scripture is proven by it’s nature and quality. It is God breathed !

Again…chapter and verse where ONE Apostle implicitly teaches: Scripture is supreme due to its nature and quality? Second, chapter and verse where scripture implicitly or explicitly declares: It is God breathed! Third, show me one ecumenical council out the first 7 where it is announced: Scripture is supreme due to its nature and quality.

The burden of proof is on others who that there are other equal rules of faith.

Not at all, it strictly falls on you for believing a false doctrine fabricated up centuries later by rebellious folks-sorry. In order to believe such a doctrine,it must have Apostolic roots and I have yet to read one early church father advocating it or even one NT writer declaring Scripture is SUPREME. If so, kindly show me those clear and explicit words so I too can believe in Sola Scriptura.

Scripture was written so that we may have come to believe that Jesus is the Christ and that by believing we may have eternal life in Him.

That is only part of the solution. Scripture was not written to be handed out to all the faithful as so many believe today. Scripture was also written so it could be preached to the masses,not so it can be printed in mass production. Actually was written more than just that purpose. How about preserving the oral Apostolic teachings of the twelve? How about to preserve the teachings of Jesus? How to preserve and to defend Jesus Christ church?

Evidently you ignore this principle that the Apostle John set forth with regard to the Gospel of John in John 20:31.

And evidently you ignore this FACT that Jesus founded His Church,which His is body,the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Ephesians 1:22-23). How about 1 Tim 3:15.

Guess Scripture is no important in your view of salvation but is is very important in my own views.

Sorry,but you assume and have the slighest idea how important scripture is to me. Problem is that one cannot read their way into Heaven. Reading the Bible is not what saves you,but cooperating with God’s graces. Sorry to rain on your parade,but no where is SS taught,it is an innovation of Protestanism.

 

[David]

I defer to the Lutheran confessions.

Jon

Jon, I am wondering what you would defer to, had you lived in the first 1500 years of Christianity?

Peace
David

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325

Yes as Christians we ought to obey God’s Words written down,but Scripture is not the only source of God’s voice.

I agree with this, only that I would add that for us, Scripture is the only infallible source. I understand that we disagree on this.

Says who? According to who? Scripture? Precisely why I have been asking for years for the chapter and verse where scripture is the only infallible source?

Quote:Nicea325
Which is the Church along with Tradition and Scripture. Scripture does not teach Christ church as secondary or under the written Words of God.Men are weak and precisely why Christ founded His church for the sinners.

I think we’ll have to disagree on this one. My reasoning is that as everything is under God, then certainly men and church are under the word of god. I understand that you view Church as always true, I only wish that I could share your estimation.

I am sorry,but your position is false. Explain to me how Christ who is Head of His Church and is the fullness of Him (Eph 1-22-23) would be fallible? Why would God sanctify certain men to carry the Ark of the Convenant and yet not do the same with His Church…His Body? I think your error lies is with the premise of adding Christ Church into the mix of finite human errors, which is not plausible. People make errors not Christ Church-does it make sense? What about Christ Church being the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)?

More important, if the church is fallible as so many Protestants teach,then explain to me with what certitude do any of us have the doctrines of the Trinity,Incarnation,canon of scripture are truly accurate? How can a fallible church just “lucky” over the centuries in ratifying such key doctrines binding our very souls? I thought Jesus’ said He would guide His Church into all Truth (John 14:16-18, 26)? Remember Christ left His church for the sinners.

Tell me my friend: If a fallible church gave us the NT canon,isn’t it logical it can plausibly be in error? What other books could be missing in the current NT canon which may contain vital teachings for our salvation?

If only the Church was always correct, then we wouldn’t be having this debate at all and we would be together. But sadly, in my estimation, the Church hasn’t always behaved correctly. I’m not however saying Luther or Lutherans are any better though - our church is defiantly not always correct.

No where does Jesus teach His church would be run and operated and followed by perfectionist. Free-will my friend. Precisely why he promised to send the Holy Spirit
(John 16:26).

Quote:Nicea325
But the argument revolves around the premise that Scripture is supreme. Again,where does God Himself teach Scripture is supreme? I have yet to read a single verse even suggesting such a false premise.

If you view scripture as a ‘book’, of course God hasn’t told us to follow it. If you view scripture as ‘the word of God’, then you can see why such an admonition isn’t necessary, as we are called to follow and praise God.

No educated Catholic would ever say the Bible does not contain the Word of God or isn’t inspired. The entire issue lies around the belief that the Bible-alone is supreme in all matters of faith and morals-if so,where is it stated in scripture?

Quote:Nicea325
Unfortunately,no amount of rebuttals will change the facts of Christian history: Sola Scriptura is a late innovation.

I think that’s probably the difference that make the distinction - I view scripture as the word of God. I will do my best to follow too, and pray that I come close to how the apostles followed.

Well yes…it should be everyones goal to follow the Word of God.
…

All that said, I completely understand your frustrations with Sola Scriptura - I’m frustrated too by it. It leaves me with too much ability to have my own interpretations. And it can degenerate to Solo Scriptura all too easily.

Unfortunately, SS is dangerous and history has shown it. It simply does not work nor was it ever taught as the only source to resolve an array issues.

But I don’t think Sola Ecclesia is perfect either - that too also subject to private interpretations as we are seeing with SSPX and their interpretations of “Authentic Magisterium.” In addition, even if we all commit to Sola Ecclesia, we would still have the problem of private interpretations as we could flit from parish to parish based on whim and personal preference

.

But the CC/EO and all ancient liturgical churches do not teach in Sola Ecclesia. Moreover it has always used: Scripture,Tradition and the Church.

If I may, what we need is something perfect to bind our consciousness, and I pray that we look ‘through and past’ our respective lenses of Scripture and Church, and are able to bind ourselves to God in spite of these problems.

I’ll pray as well.

God Bless my brother in Christ