Is infallible knowledge of the Canon possible

[Randy_Carson]

Furthermore, the Bible never defines what does and doesn’t belong in the Canon.

First, Duh!! Neither does your rule of faith define what are the ex Cathedra statements, but that doesn’t slow you down.

Our understanding of the infallibility of the Church does not require such a list of statements.

However, the doctrine of sola scriptura logically requires that it be found within the pages of scripture.

Luther foisted it upon the world as a means of cutting himself free from the ECF’s and the Magisterium specifically because he knew that they had never taught sola fide, but he hadn’t thought through all the implications of sola scriptura.

Consequently, his spirtitual sons are left holding the bag.

Second, you assume that a infallible source is needed to resolve all differences, but that is fallacious. Not everyone is happy with the resolution, just as not everyone has been happy with the resolutions made by Catholicism( can you say Old Catholic Church), but they are made none the less.

So what? Not everyone is happy with Jesus. Truth simply rubs some people the wrong way.

Finally, in the end it doesn’t make much difference if you say I believe Rome is infallible therefore,I will trust her decision on the canon and my saying, I believe the infallible God is working with his fallible church to guide her decision on the canon.

Huh?

You: the church is fallible but got the canon right

Us: the church is infallible and got the canon right

There is no difference in these positions? Our position allows for the Church to use its infallibility to interpret the scriptures correctly.

You have the correct NT Canon and you can read it all day with no real assurance that your interpretations are even close to correct. You think you arrive at a true knowledge of interpretation but others disagree.

Hence, Protestants teach sola fide, once saved-always saved and a host of other errors and can’t decide whether to baptize infants or not. Etc., etc., etc.

Your fallible church offers you no help at all, and it cannot do so. You’re on your own.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No one probably noticed because that is not what is taking place. I’ve only shown there is no reason to believe in an infallible church( not to even mentioned your concept of an infallible magisteruim), but there is someone infallible that we need to believe in and that is God. God is infallible so His word is infallible. The only infallible word of God we have in our position is in the Holy, Inerrant, and Infallible( contrary to some Catholics) Scriptures. And the Scriptures point us to the God of the Scriptures who is revealed in His glorious Son.

I have to stop and remind you, Sola, that you have acknowledged that Jesus gave infallibility to the original Apostles.

Apostolic Succession is the next link in the chain.

I can understand if it scares the bejeebers out of you, because if the Bible teaches Apostolic Succession, you are left facing the very real possibility that the Catholic Church really is the one true Church.

Can you bring yourself to hear the Word of God on Apostolic Succession?

 

[kaycee]

Look at Mikeledes’ post, #116. It seems he has more actual details about the whole matter than I, and his details do indeed affirm that there is some sense of mistaken anti-papal bias in the version of the story that you’ve presented.

The African bishops warned Zosimus that he was being misled by Pelagius and Caelestius and appealed to him to uphold the official judgment rendered by his predecessor Innocent. He wrote back saying that he had given the whole affair his thorough consideration and all further consideration of the matter must cease. He demanded submission to his decree. As Merdinger observes:

In Quamuis patrum written in March 418, he deliberately flaunted his apostolic authority and claimed that no one should should dispute his judgment…’So great is our authority that no decision of ours can be subjected to review.’…Such is the authority of Peter and the venerable decrees of the church that all questions concerning human and divine laws, as well as all disciplinary matters, must be referred to Rome for ultimate resolution. This was high–flown language indeed and, as far as the Africans were concerned, totally unacceptable (J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine (New Haven: Yale University, 1997), p. 129).

The North Africans then assembled a general synod of their own with some 200 bishops present in which they passed a number of canons specifically condemning the teachings of Pelagius. This was done in defiance of the express decrees of Zosimus. As a result of their opposition and the fact that the emperor had sided with the judgment of the North African bishops, Pope Zosimus reversed his position and rejected the Pelagian heresy.

The incident with Zosimus is not a case of a pope expressing a private opinion, becoming better informed, and then changing his mind. This pope not only reversed the judgment of a previous pope, but officially contradicted himself. He retracts what he had authoritatively announced in an encyclical letter on an issue of major doctrinal importance. This is an authoritative declaration addressed to all the North African bishops demanding their submission to his decrees. Did Augustine and the North African bishops comply with this papal decree? No! They withstood Zosimus to his face, resolutely refusing to submit to his error, demonstrating from their actions that they considered the pope neither infallible nor the supreme ruler of the Church.

 

[KindredSoul]

Furthermore, the Bible never defines what does and doesn’t belong in the Canon.

First, Duh!! Neither does your rule of faith define what are the ex Cathedra statements, but that doesn’t slow you down. Neither Scripture or early tradition teaches every Bishop of Rome will be infallible, but that doesn’t slow you down either.

Uh, yeah, our rule of faith does define what are the ex Cathedra statements. I’m surprised you didn’t know that. The definition of Ex-cathedra is very well defined. As for neither Scripture or early tradition teaching that every Bishop of Rome will be infallible, there is indeed scriptural evidence for the infallibility of Peter, and there is evidence that the early church (whom Protestants claim to seek to imitate) always trusted the Bishop of Rome as his successor, which is more than can be said for Protestants, who don’t even believe him as a mere general rule. The main point of this paragraph is, Tradition is self defining as well as being defined by other circumstances in history…the Canon is not self defining at all, which is why using it as a sole rule of faith gets blurry.

Second, you assume that a infallible source is needed to resolve all differences, but that is fallacious. Not everyone is happy with the resolution, just as not everyone has been happy with the resolutions made by Catholicism( can you say Old Catholic Church), but they are made none the less.

Yes, but when everyone isn’t happy with the resolutions made by Catholicism, such as Old Catholic Church, they at least directly claim to believe the Pope and Magesterium are wrong, so any faithful Catholic who believes the Pope and Magesterium knows to steer cleaof such claims…on the other hand, I’ve heard tons of gravely unorthodox Protestants (and by that I mean Protestants who would make you yourself shiver) claim that they derive their beliefs from the very same Bible you do.

Finally, in the end it doesn’t make much difference if you say I believe Rome is infallible therefore,I will trust her decision on the canon and my saying, I believe the infallible God is working with his fallible church to guide her decision on the canon.

…but He stopped guiding the Church to other infallible (simply meaning, God-given) decisions? If so, why is there no obvious verse of scripture OR otherwise telling us that at the time of the council? That’s what Protestants have neglected to say. If God infallibly led the Church to knowledge of the Canon, why stop there? And even then, why not make sure that everyone knew He’d stopped there? (Which obviously didn’t happen because for over 1000 years after the Canon came together, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura simply didn’t exist). Is God that inconsistent? I don’t think so.

As you may have noticed in the previous paragraph, I also think you’ve mistaken what infallibility means…it simply means that God guided the person/church’s decision, and didn’t allow that decision to be wrong, which you believe of the Canon. To say that the infallible God guided a fallible Church is to say that He made that Church infallible at least for the duration of that decision, since that’s the very meaning of infallibility. It’s in light of that fact that I pose my questions to you from the previous paragraph.

 

[KindredSoul]

**The African bishops warned Zosimus **that he was being misled by Pelagius and Caelestius and appealed to him to uphold the official judgment rendered by his predecessor Innocent. He wrote back saying that he had given the whole affair his thorough consideration and all further consideration of the matter must cease. He demanded submission to his decree. As Merdinger observes:

In Quamuis patrum written in March 418, he deliberately flaunted his apostolic authority and claimed that no one should should dispute his judgment…’So great is our authority that no decision of ours can be subjected to review.’…Such is the authority of Peter and the venerable decrees of the church that all questions concerning human and divine laws, as well as all disciplinary matters, must be referred to Rome for ultimate resolution. This was high–flown language indeed and, as far as the Africans were concerned, totally unacceptable (J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine (New Haven: Yale University, 1997), p. 129).

The North Africans then assembled a general synod of their own with some 200 bishops present in which they passed a number of canons specifically condemning the teachings of Pelagius. This was done in defiance of the express decrees of Zosimus. As a result of their opposition and the fact that the emperor had sided with the judgment of the North African bishops, Pope Zosimus reversed his position and rejected the Pelagian heresy.

The incident with Zosimus is not a case of a pope expressing a private opinion, becoming better informed, and then changing his mind. This pope not only reversed the judgment of a previous pope, but officially contradicted himself. He retracts what he had authoritatively announced in an encyclical letter on an issue of major doctrinal importance. This is an authoritative declaration addressed to all the North African bishops demanding their submission to his decrees.** Did Augustine and the North African bishops comply with this papal decree? No! They withstood Zosimus to his face, resolutely refusing to submit to his error, demonstrating from their actions that they considered the pope neither infallible nor the supreme ruler of the Church**.

So it’s your academic quotes against Mikeledes’ academic quote? If you believe the story happened the way you quote, there’s something of a challenge. If one believes the story the way Mikeledes’ quotes (also backed by a very academic and well researched article, if you go to his link–that article uses a great many references and is not amateur) then Catholicism stands firm. So, a Protestant will ask why he/she should believe Mikeledes’ source. I ask why I should believe yours. If two academic sources (the publisher of yours hardly makes it superior, as publishers of equal repute might easily try to refute Jesus’ miracles historically) are saying different things about this issue regarding what actually factually happened, I’d say the incident is a very weak argument either in favor of or against Catholicism.

 

[mikeledes]

Personally, I don’t see the point of this thread. While you may say you only have the assurance of faith that the Bible is the infallible rule of faith, you talk and act like you have infallible certainty. When you talk to an atheist, how can you convince him/her that there is a God? How can you convince them that the God of the Bible is the right God? I’m sure that in your discussion you will sound like one who has infallible knowledge.

Inerrant and infallible essentially mean the same thing:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/inerrant

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Mickey]

No! They withstood Zosimus to his face, resolutely refusing to submit to his error, demonstrating from their actions that they considered the pope neither infallible nor the supreme ruler of the Church.

Part of forum rules states that you must post the references you use here. In this case you plagiarized from the famous anti-Catholic William Webster.

 

[Bishopite]

SolaScriptura;1874622]No one probably noticed because that is not what is taking place. I’ve only shown there is no reason to believe in an infallible church( not to even mentioned your concept of an infallible magisteruim), but there is someone infallible that we need to believe in and that is God. God is infallible so His word is infallible. The only infallible word of God we have in our position is in the Holy, Inerrant, and Infallible( contrary to some Catholics) Scriptures. And the Scriptures point us to the God of the Scriptures who is revealed in His glorious Son.

This is a huge blunder; you are preaching to the choir.
We ALL agree the Scriptures are infallible, and the canon was first recognized at the council of Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damusus. Here is first authoritative list of the canon with 27 New Testament books…
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

Again, the Scriptures are infallible however which interpretation is the correct one isn’t answered in Protestantism. In fact, to say that we don’t need an infallible interpretation of infallble Scripture leaves everyone to their best guesses and is epistomologically untenable.

So what should we “Catholics” believe?
Once saved always saved, lose of salvation? Padeo baptism? Women as pastors? Saturday only worship? TULIP? Sacraments? Music in worship? Calvinism? Arminianism?
Pre, a or post millinialism?
Rapture or not?
Sleign by the Spirit or not?
Neccesity for baptism or not?
Prosperity gospel or not?
All of these and many more are *Protestant sola Scriptura issues that aren’t resolved by merely and simplistically saying we have an infallible set of Scriptures, it a naive position.

 

[mikeledes]

**The African bishops warned Zosimus **that he was being misled by Pelagius and Caelestius and appealed to him to uphold the official judgment rendered by his predecessor Innocent. He wrote back saying that he had given the whole affair his thorough consideration and all further consideration of the matter must cease. He demanded submission to his decree. As Merdinger observes:

In Quamuis patrum written in March 418, he deliberately flaunted his apostolic authority and claimed that no one should should dispute his judgment…’So great is our authority that no decision of ours can be subjected to review.’…Such is the authority of Peter and the venerable decrees of the church that all questions concerning human and divine laws, as well as all disciplinary matters, must be referred to Rome for ultimate resolution. This was high–flown language indeed and, as far as the Africans were concerned, totally unacceptable (J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine (New Haven: Yale University, 1997), p. 129).

The North Africans then assembled a general synod of their own with some 200 bishops present in which they passed a number of canons specifically condemning the teachings of Pelagius. This was done in defiance of the express decrees of Zosimus. As a result of their opposition and the fact that the emperor had sided with the judgment of the North African bishops, Pope Zosimus reversed his position and rejected the Pelagian heresy.

The incident with Zosimus is not a case of a pope expressing a private opinion, becoming better informed, and then changing his mind. This pope not only reversed the judgment of a previous pope, but officially contradicted himself. He retracts what he had authoritatively announced in an encyclical letter on an issue of major doctrinal importance. This is an authoritative declaration addressed to all the North African bishops demanding their submission to his decrees.** Did Augustine and the North African bishops comply with this papal decree? No! They withstood Zosimus to his face, resolutely refusing to submit to his error, demonstrating from their actions that they considered the pope neither infallible nor the supreme ruler of the Church**.

Did you read the link I provided? Did you read the quotes from Augustine himself? Zozimus never upheld Pelagianism. He never formally taught Pelagianism. The most that can be said is that he was misled into believing that they were orthodox.

God bless,
Michael

 

[KindredSoul]

This is a huge blunder; you are preaching to the choir.
We ALL agree the Scriptures are infallible, and the canon was first recognized at the council of Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damusus. Here is first authoritative list of the canon with 27 New Testament books…
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

Again, the Scriptures are infallible however which interpretation is the correct one isn’t answered in Protestantism.

I just wanted to second that–there is nothing “contrary to Catholic” Tradition in saying the Scriptures are infallible/inerrant. We do believe that too…the scriptures are just not the sole source of faith, nor the entirety of the word of God.

 

[SolaScriptura]

This is a huge blunder; you are preaching to the choir.
We ALL agree the Scriptures are infallible, and the canon was first recognized at the council of Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damusus. Here is first authoritative list of the canon with 27 New Testament books…
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

LOL … you should read in another thread where another Roman Catholic is arguing something different. He denies the Scripture are infallible, but instead he says they are only inerrant. And of course you have other Roman Catholics who deny they are inerrant in every aspect. So you are the one guilty of huge blunder and who knows what RC choir I’m preaching to.

Again, the Scriptures are infallible however which interpretation is the correct one isn’t answered in Protestantism. In fact, to say that we don’t need an infallible interpretation of infallble Scripture leaves everyone to their best guesses and is epistomologically untenable.

Sigh … so many errors so little time.

So what should we “Catholics” believe?

OK, I will tell you.

Once saved always saved, lose of salvation?

Perseverance of the Saints is the correct answer here.

Padeo baptism?

Yes.

Women as pastors?

No.

Saturday only worship?

No.

TULIP?

Yes, beautiful flower.

Sacraments?

Yes, two of them.

Music in worship?

Yes.

Calvinism?

Isn’t that synonymous with TULIP above?

Arminianism?

Nah.

Pre, a or post millinialism?

Neither. Try Amil

Rapture or not?

Yes, Scripture speaks of believers being raptured(i.e caught up). The real question is what does one think happens after that point.

Sleign by the Spirit or not?

Not.

Neccesity for baptism or not?

Not necessary required to be saved, but required to be a part of God’s physical church.

Prosperity gospel or not?

Nope.

All of these and many more are *Protestant sola Scriptura issues that aren’t resolved by merely and simplistically saying we have an infallible set of Scriptures, it a naive position.

Well, just ask SolaScriptura and I will solve them for you, because I’ve been given the gift of infallibility also Oh, I bet you can’t get any infallible answers from Rome to all those questions. I’m a much better infallible interpreter.

 

[ncgolf]

Well, just ask SolaScriptura and I will solve them for you, because I’ve been given the gift of infallibility also Oh, I bet you can’t get any infallible answers from Rome to all those questions. I’m a much better infallible interpreter.

Wow … do you live in the clouds too!

 

[mikeledes]

Sola, do have infallible knoweldge that the Bible is the infallible word of God? Does the infallibility of the Bible depend on infallible knowledge of its infallibility?

Secondly, you say that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but the Canon was discerned by mere men. You say you put your trust that God would ensure that we would receive the correct canon and that the Church would make the right decision. I say, based on the promises of Christ and the fact that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, that I have the assurance of faith that God would not only infallibly guide mere men in their discernment of the canon, but also in their interpretatation of the Word of God. He will make sure that His truth is preserved.

You say you believe that the gates of hell will not overpower His Church. Then what happened in the 1500 years before Martin Luther? Did the truth resurface in the 16th century? Only problem is that it resurfaced as a confused mess.

God Bless,
Michael

God Bless

 

[Philthy]

Hi SS -

I will begin my post by confessing that I have not bothered to read through the thread and that I have no intention of engaging in another marathon debate - I simply felt it was important to address the premises that you established to predicate your argument.

Whose position of the canon is the most consistent?

Consistent with what - made made expectations?
ss:

I would argue that my position is and the Catholic position is illogical. I believe we as fallible humans cannot have infallible knowledge of anything unless we are inspired of God.

Very good, so in order to even have confidence that the Scriptures are an infallible collection, we need an infallible source of revelation outside of ourselves or we need to believe that God will inspire each person individually- VERY interesting…
ss:

We have faith and trust in God’s promises, but faith is not based on infallible knowledge.

This is probably not the direction you want to go in - faith is a loose entity and can exist along with infallible knowledge - I think. For example, Christ revealed his glorified self to Paul yet I dont think it would be accurate to say that Paul no longer had “faith” in Christ.
ss:

Catholics often claim Protestants need an infallible church so we can have infallible knowledge of the canon. But there is a big problem. How can fallible Catholics relying on their own fallible knowledge to sift through all the competing claims by churches.

They can’t, but that doesnt mean that the canon wasnt determined infallibly. In addition, they can, once they recognize the need for the existence of an infallible revelation of Scripture, start reducing their search by elimination those churches which claim it is not necessary!
ss:

Sift through the Scriptures and sift through all the competing historical voices have infallible knowledge of anything? They would need to be individual infallible in order to guarantee any thing they believe is infallible.

How interesting that you arrive at the necessary conclusion that in order to place our faith in Scripture we need an infallible authority apart from ourselves to provide us with it. Now where have I heard that before…?
ss:

So Catholics, how do you move from fallibility to infallible knowledge of things such as the canon?

My personal answer is that I dont make such a move. I dont consider my personal opinion infallible while at the same time I recognize that an infallible revelation of such information may be granted to another. In order for me to believe the “other” as a credible witness to divine revelation it would need to meet certain requirements; logical, Scriptural and historical.

 

[KindredSoul]

LOL … you should read in another thread where another Roman Catholic is arguing something different. He denies the Scripture are infallible, but instead he says they are only inerrant. And of course you have other Roman Catholics who deny they are inerrant in every aspect. So you are the one guilty of huge blunder and who knows what RC choir I’m preaching to.

You should realize that “inerrant”, in the Catholic definition, means the same exact thing that infallible means for a Protestant speaking of the scriptures…it means that the Bible contains no doctrinal or moral errors, but simply that the Bible is not the same as a human being. In fact, to call the Bible inerrant is actually more respectful, since it means that the Bible is consistently correct in the matters of Faith and Morals, whereas infallible means that the source is correct only on certain conditions and issues (ex: Pope is guaranteed correctness about Ex Cathedra statements, not what he says in random conversation). This is a technicality, which is why I assume no one has disputed the use of the words on this thread.

Sigh … so many errors so little time.

OK, I will tell you.

Perseverance of the Saints is the correct answer here.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes, beautiful flower.

Yes, two of them.

Yes.

Isn’t that synonymous with TULIP above?

Nah.

Neither. Try Amil

Yes, Scripture speaks of believers being raptured(i.e caught up). The real question is what does one think happens after that point.

Not.

Not necessary required to be saved, but required to be a part of God’s physical church.

Nope.

Well, just ask SolaScriptura and I will solve them for you, because I’ve been given the gift of infallibility also Oh, I bet you can’t get any infallible answers from Rome to all those questions. I’m a much better infallible interpreter.

If you really meant any of those answers as the only definitive Christian answer and you weren’t just mocking the Church, then you very much do believe you’re infallible and it’s not just the joke you may intend it to be, because only an infallible person could say of any of those issues for a “fact of Faith” (we shall say) that his way is the only way to interpret the scripture. So either you don’t really believe that those are the only right interpretations, or you do believe that you (or some other mortal who has taught you to interpret the scriptures that way) are infallible and those who disagree with you are not. To even draw those conclusions and say that anyone who doesn’t is misinterpreting is a contradiction of Sola Scriptura!

 

[mikeledes]

LOL … you should read in another thread where another Roman Catholic is arguing something different. He denies the Scripture are infallible, but instead he says they are only inerrant. And of course you have other Roman Catholics who deny they are inerrant in every aspect. So you are the one guilty of huge blunder and who knows what RC choir I’m preaching to.

Sigh … so many errors so little time.

OK, I will tell you.

Perseverance of the Saints is the correct answer here.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes, beautiful flower.

Yes, two of them.

Yes.

Isn’t that synonymous with TULIP above?

Nah.

Neither. Try Amil

Yes, Scripture speaks of believers being raptured(i.e caught up). The real question is what does one think happens after that point.

Not.

Not necessary required to be saved, but required to be a part of God’s physical church.

Nope.

Well, just ask SolaScriptura and I will solve them for you, because I’ve been given the gift of infallibility also Oh, I bet you can’t get any infallible answers from Rome to all those questions. I’m a much better infallible interpreter.

You make a lot of assertions here. I’m assuming you’re of a Calvinst background (Presbyterians or Reformed?). So you deny baptismal regeneration, a principle clearly taught by the early Church and by Martin Luther. Why do you require us to prove from the Chuch Fathers papal infallibility, claiming it is an innovation, but then you overlook the clear historical evidence against your view of baptism? Your view on baptism is an innovation dating to the 16th century. Oh… wait… so is Calvinism.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

You make a lot of assertions here that clearly contradict the teachings of other Protestant churches. So much for unity on essenitals. I’m assuming you’re of a Calvinst background (Presbyterians or Reformed?). So you deny baptismal regeneration, a principle clearly taught by the early Church and by Martin Luther. Why do you require us to prove from the Chuch Fathers papal infallibility, claiming it is an innovation, but then you overlook the clear historical evidence against your view of baptism? Your view on baptism is an innovation dating to the 16th century. Oh … wait… so is Calvinism.

God bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

You make a lot of assertions here.

No, I answered his question. Most of the questions asked for Yes or No, so I gave that. Of course I was somewhat joking, this wasn’t meant to be really serious my friend. Lighten up

I’m assuming you’re of a Calvinst background (Presbyterians or Reformed?).

Yeah, you got me. I’m a Presbyterian.

So you deny baptismal regeneration, a principle clearly taught by the early Church and by Martin Luther.

Yeah, I sometimes disagree with the church fathers and Luther. I even sometimes disagree with Calvin. Even worst I don’t always agree with Presbyterians. I sound just like a Catholic, right?

Why do you require us to prove from the Chuch Fathers papal infallibility, claiming it is an innovation, but then you overlook the clear historical evidence against your view of baptism?

Because you keep telling me I need Tradition to guide my theology, but then you don’t even abide by it. I never claim Oral Tradition had the final say so on my theology, that is the role of Scripture. I don’t call myself sola Scriptura for nothing. And before some wise Catholic jumps in the conversation, that doesn’t mean I can use anything else. It simply means onlhy Scripture is infallible and highest authority.

Your view on baptism is an innovation dating to the 16th century.

Well, I’m still earlier than Catholicism with some of her Marian dogmas and Papal Infallibility. But more importantly I can make strong biblical arguments for my belief, on the other hand you have neither Scripture or early tradition.

Oh… wait… so is Calvinism.

Ouch I owe you one.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I will begin my post by confessing that I have not bothered to read through the thread and that I have no intention of engaging in another marathon debate - I simply felt it was important to address the premises that you established to predicate your argument.

Oh brother. You should have read through it, because you wouldn’t be repeating stuff that has already been answered. Also you have a very bad problem of reading things in context. I went through this with you on the other thread and it is manifest in this one already.

 

[mikeledes]

Yeah, I sometimes disagree with the church fathers and Luther. I even sometimes disagree with Calvin. Even worst I don’t always agree with Presbyterians. I sound just like a Catholic, right?

Hey Sola, don’t take my Calvinism comment personal. It’s not your fault. So you diagree with Luther, Calvin, the Church Fathers, and even your own Church on certain issues. Why?

Secondly, if someone were to say that the Epistle of Saint Jude is not inspired because it quotes apocryphal sources and was even disputed in the early Church, how eould you convince me otherwise?

God bless,
Michael