Since those subsequent reformers - Calvin, for example - came from Catholicism, it seems Rome had similar “reeling in” problems. As for the more modern ones, none came from Lutheranism. And you added Joseph Smith who, by definition, wasn’t even Christian.
Trent took care of those problems- dogmatically! True authority.
By whose definition? Yours? Who gave you the authority to decide who is Christian and who is not? According to SS, you do not have that authority. According to SS, Josseph Smith has the right to interpret Scripture, and he did. And he and his “church” claim to be Christian, so… unless you’re appealing to the Authority of Rome, you cannot deny that Joseph Smith and the Mormons or the Latter Day Saints, or whatever you want to call them, are Christian.
Thank you very much!
Who knows!I am coming rather late on the thread and I knew that that would have been asked already and I also knew that no one would come up with the answer . Same thing has happened on quite a few similar threads.
Now the question is what does the OP or anyone who still cling to SS do?
The three ancient creeds are not in the Bible per se. You have no right to appeal to them.
I have every right to appeal to them. Under what grounds would you make such a statement?
Sure, but I’m sure Joseph Smith saw them and simply concluded, “these aren’t Biblical.” Since the Bible is the final arbiter of orthodoxy, I guess we can’t argue with him, can we?
You’ve said yourself, Jon, time and time again, you accept the first 6 (or 7) Councils and the creeds that came of them because you believe Scripture supports them. But, if you looked closer and didn’t see Scripture supporting them (as so many have begun to do), how can you deny that new interpretation? You have no authority whatsoever to appeal to for that. You say, “see the first three creeds!” They say, “I do, and they’re unscriptural!” You do indeed have every right to appeal to them… and those who reject them have every right to dismiss your appeal out of hand. Your forefather gave them that right by creating Sola Scriptura!
Of course the authority is there. So, let’s look at it from strictly a Lutheran POV. Lutherans are held to scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. The first section of which contains the three creeds. From the perspective of Lutheranism, they are authoritative.
Indeed they are, but how can you, under even the Lutheran view of SS, ever know for certain that you are the one who’s right?
How do you know you are right, and Orthodoxy is wrong? They profess the same Sacred Tradition, and in some ways, seem to have better maintained the early Church teachings, without “development” or “innovation”.
I trust Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium equally, and most of all within that, I trust Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Chief Steward’s Church, especially in light of the fact that the witness of history confirms that it never has. I start with trust in God, not trust in my own nor in anyone else’s fallible interpretation of only 1/3 of God’s promised Word.
Indeed, you trust your Church and its teachings. You do it by faith. You have a trust and faith in the Pope and the Magisterium, as you ought, that they are teaching, in all honesty and sincerity, truth.
And it never will, neither in the Chuch Militant, nor in the Church Triumphant, our differences notwithstanding.
So that’s it? You just agree with the part that we both know we agree on (though we define things slightly differently… and, you know, I include the Church Suffering, which you ignore) but avoid the uncomfortable question about the part we disagree on? I thought this was a debate thread. Where’s the debate? How do you have faith in a decapitated Body? You still have not answered the question, Jon.
And it occured to me that this absolutely applies to the sola scriptura discussion. You see, Jesus explained what the parables meant to his Church but those outside the Church were left in the dark. The only way to understand what the Gospel meant was to get that understanding from those that were entrusted with it.
Funny, I thought it was dialogue. That seems to be the approach our two communions have mutually decided to venture into since Vatican II.
So, how is the Church headless. Christ is the head of His bride, the Church, just as the husband is the head of the family.
See above. Perhaps I didn’t respond because of the polemic nature of the question. If, instead, you wish to ask me if Christianity would be better off under one leader, I shall be happy to dialogue with you regarding that, as well.
,I will disagree that these folks [Vulgarius, Cyril as well as the other ECF’s] were authoritative. At least not in the same vein as Scripture or the Magisterium or Apostoloic Tradition. No, the value of the ECF’s is not their authority but rather their testimony. For they testify to the faith of the early Church and their testimony is the history of the Church for all to read and to see exactly what the Church believed. And not a single one of them was a sola scripturist.
I will agree with you, testimony is a better word.
