Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sonny89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are passages, such as… Based on verses such as these…
NO, Sea, these doctrines were not formulated upon passages and verses. The Christian faith is not extrapolated from passages of Scripture as many moderns appear to believe. the doctrine of the Trinity was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The faith of the Church is reflected in Scripture, and the passages are reliable evidence of what the Church believes and teaches, but they are not the Source. Jesus is the Source. the Church has this faith because it was handed down to us from the Apostles.

The problem with most modern theology is that it is formed the way you have indicted here, in isolation from the Apsotolic faith.
 
Code:
Not sure where you got that idea. We don't believe you can commune with the dead, but we do understand the concepts of the church militant and the church triumphant.
Not all Protestants do, sea. There are some that believe in “soul sleep”. If you believe in the Church triumphant, why are you saying “commune with the dead”? Are not those who die in the Lord alive forevermore?
I trust you misspoke. We do not pray to eachother. We pray to the Trinity alone. We do pray with each other, just as Catholics do.
We do not exclude those in the Church triumphant from praying with us.
 
So, you mean to tell me Catholics are only required to believe those things which have been pronounced by the Catholic Church infallibly? I know this is not true. Nowhere does the Catholic Church encourage its laity to be “cafeteria Catholics.” No, as a Catholic you are supposed to accept all Catholic doctrine.
Sea, I think you have a long way to go in understanding what Catholics are “supposed” to do. Are you here to learn, or to tell us what we believe?

We accept all Catholic doctrine because it is infallible. Catholic doctrine is the Teaching of Jesus, through the Apostles. It cannot be changed. It has been proclaimed with infallibility.

The successors of the Apsotles are not infallible, and we are not required to believe they are.
Sorry, but I doubt there are many Catholics who would challenge the Magisterium, let alone the Pope. The RCC teaches that if you believe a Catholic doctrine to be in error, then the fact is you are in error!
Actually, a lot of folks on CAF are lapsed Catholics who are in direct rebellion against the successor of Peter. You are right about those of us who are faithful to Christ, though. If we have a problem with some thing He taught, then we assume the problem is with ourselves, rather than His teaching, preserved infallibly in the Church.
Code:
 If you evaluate a Catholic doctrine against Scripture and find that doctrine to be contrary to Scripture, then your choices are to shut up about it, or present yourself for execommunication.
This seems rather rebellious and impertinent, as well as ignorant. First of all, there ARE no Catholic doctrines that go against scripture. They both come from the same Source, and therefore, cannot contradict. If they appear to contradict, then one must study to show oneself approved, pray for wisdom, and seek to understand what appears to be contradictory. No one is excommunicated because of a lack of understanding.
Code:
Yes, yes, I know, the RCC tends to be much more gracious than that, as evidenced in its treatment of the likes of Nancy Pelosi and the now deceased Ted Kennedy. But the point is that you don't have a leg to stand on. Your not even supposed to be judging the truthfulness of their teachings because it is not your prerogative, according to the Catholic Church.
We are not in a position to judge the state of another’s soul. Only God can do that. The Church is bound to teach the Truth.
 
Nor did any Apostle. None of them needed The Catholic Church to tell any of them anything about what is or is not Scripture. Read what they said, CENTURIES before 400 AD: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 9:17, Roamns 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, 1 Tim. 5:18, 2 Timothy 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16Thank you,
Pax
  • Josiah
    .
Amid your firestorm of cutting and pasting, I do see an assumption. You seem to think that the Catholic Church dates from 400 AD. Where do you get that date? What Church do you think is being built in the Acts of the Apostles? When Peter speaks at the first recorded council in Church history (Acts 15:6-11), what Church do you think that is? The Lutheran church?

Jesus promised his apostles he would be with them to the end of the age, that he would build his Church on Peter, the Rock, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Jesus founded a Church - he appointed Peter as the first head of that Church, and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The original apostles handed their authority down to the next generation of bishops. Later that Church was called “catholic” (universal). In time, it because known as the Catholic Church. Jesus promised at the end of the Gospel of Matthew that he would be with his followers until the end of the age - which he is through His Church.

Do you think Jesus was lying when he said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” or “I will be with you until the end of the age”?

In no place did Jesus mention writing down his words or actions. His intention was not to leave us a book - but to leave us a Church, the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
 
Josiah

Mea Culpa stated earlier

“So, when you read the Gospel of Matthew as part of the canon of Scripture but not the Gospel of Thomas, you are accepting the authority of the Catholic Church.”

I think this is where I don’t understand your defense of SS before the fourth century by quoting the NT.

How is it you can deny the role the Catholic Church played in relation to the NT while simultaneously using that very same NT to defend SS?
 
if the primacy of the pope was firmly in place from the beginning, then why weren’t all of the heretics (Arius, Nestorius, etc. etc. etc.) simply thrown out of the Church? Why bother to convene a council? The pope could have simply uttered an infallible clarification that showed the heretics to be wrong and that would have been the end of the story.
There was no need to “throw them out” because they had already departed from the Apostolic faith.

Do you think Peter “threw out” Ananias and Sapphira?

The council was needed for the same reason they are needed today. They were a response to heresies,and defined the faith more specifically to prevent the faithful from falling into error.

As you know, the word Trinity does not appear in the NT. The council met to discuss the faith of the Apostles that was handed down to them, and came up with that term and explained what it meant. It clarified which beliefs were heresy, and which were Apostolic.

As you know, the heretics also based their position on scripture, just as those espousing heresies do today.

The NT does not contain the term “homoousious” either, but that term was adopted by the Council to put to rest heretical ideas. Theotokos, another word not found in the NT was also chosen.

The councils function to clarify the faith, refute heresy, and guide the faithful into all Truth.
 
Protestants accept sola scriptura. But, as we have seen, there are many disagreements among bible believers about what scripture means. Suppose, now, there is a disagreement, a problem that requires settling. An answer is urgently needed because the issue affects the entire church. Is there a way to resolve the issue? Settle the dispute once and for all? A way we can rely on? Consulting scripture can’t be the way because scripture itself is the battleground!

Historically, the method used has been for church leaders to get together and vote on the issue. The idea here is that the Holy Spirit will guide the church leaders who have gathered in council, to vote correctly. That is, the Holy Spirit will prevent the church leaders from voting wrong. Obviously, the Holy Spirit does not always guide individuals to correct decisions, but will He guide the Church as a whole?

My question then is to Protestants…are there those among you who would accept this method? I know there are some, mainly old-time mainline denominations, that would, in theory, accept the idea of a universal, that is, ecumenical council, even though the likelihood of such a council convening be extremely remote. (Because it would require everyone, all Christians, to be represented on the council. Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and so on. Even Catholics and Orthodox would need to attend. Although perhaps not JW’s and Mormons.)

Okay, I have just described an infallible ecumenical council. Are there those Protestants here who do not accept the idea?
 
Well, it is called the ROMAN Catholic Church. The pope is called a pontiff. Yes, it is Roman in many ways.

Also, please show me where Christ specifically sent his apostles to Rome. He did send them to all nations, but nowhere does He specifically send them to Rome.
kjv acts 23: 11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Among those Protestants who practice exegesis, there is agreement on the fundamentals of the faith. This was demonstrated in the document entitled The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration, which was signed by Protestants from many different denominations in 1999. The signers of the declaration might disagree on non-essential doctrines, but they all agree on what the Bible says about the essentials.
have not read this, but what about “Once Saved Always Saved”?
 
The signers of the declaration might disagree on non-essential doctrines, but they all agree on what the Bible says about the essentials.
Where does it say in scripture what is essential and non essential and who decides that?

Mat 4:4
But he answered, “It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

Not just what some consider important

Mat 5:19
Whoever then relaxes one of the** least **of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;

1 Tim 1:3
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine

The bible makes it clear we are to be of one mind. That may seem impossible, but we are never to settle for partial agreement.
 
Originally Posted by seascale
The signers of the declaration might disagree on non-essential doctrines, but they all agree on what the Bible says about the essentials.
If ever there was a recipe for wishy-washy, watered down, relativistic, confused and contradictory theology and religion, this must surely be it.

Mark 3:25
“If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”
 
If God is omniscient then he knows how to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering.
If God is omnipotent then he is able to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering.
If God is benevolent then he wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering.
But if God knows how to, is able to and wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering, then why does he not do so?

“God is incomprehensible” you respond.

Theists have often been content to say that we are unable to comprehend God, that his being transcends our mundane experiences and that our concepts, which are derived from such experiences, cannot be used to describe him. If true, then this might be thought to count in favor of agnosticism; if we cannot comprehend God, then how can we reason with any confidence concerning his existence?

Of course, I can’t expect this to make sense to any one here. The only way you could maintain such a blind faith as I see here is if you rejected anything that offended you or challenged your knowledge. At least when I am censored, you must acknowledge the truth of this last paragraph.
 
Then you disagree with The Catholic Church.

It passionately holds that ALL teachers of doctrine are fully, wholly, completely accountable for what is taught RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW - and not just to God. As you know, it has a very long history of judging teachers and teachings, of declaring some teachings and teachers to be wrong, of excommunicating, declaring some of heresy and that they are heretics, even occasionally dispatching the wrong to their appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. It DISAGREES with you that teachers are accountable only to God. Frankly, I do too. Which is it? Do you argree with The Catholic Church and I that teachers are accountable here and now, or do you think that teacher are only accountable to God and The Catholic Church needs to reverse and repent of all its excommunications, declaration of heresies, and firery dismissals from earthly life?.
Do you have any document in mind where this accountability is stated? If so please present it. And yes the Church does have a long history [going on 2,000 years now] of protecting the deposit of faith. By the way pal, do not mince my words. The Church by its very nature as the depository and protector of the faith is accountable only to God whereas other teachers because they are not the depository of the faith are accountable to God thru His Church here on earth.
Such is the claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone. We’re discussing if it is the most sound epistemology and the most sound way to determine correctness for the defendant to excempt himself alone from accountability and for himself alone to insist instead that he alone is incapable of being wrong, and that all just lay aside accountability in the singular, exclusive case of self alone and rather just accept whatever self alone says with docility.

Of course, as we all know, Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any regard for any matter. And you, too, seem to be confusing Teacher with students, Leader with followers. I’d suggest you read Genesis Chapter 3. .
Why is something God ordained open for discussion? If God ordained it what’s to discuss? Seems to me the issue is moot. And by the way the church alone does not insist that it is incapable of being wrong. The church only says what the scriptures say. Maybe you should give us your interpretation of what the power given to Peter to bind and loose on earth as well as heaven [Mt 1618-19] ]means to you because it sure looks like that is the crux of the issue here. If something is bound in heaven how can it be wrong?
 
It has been a common Catholic apologetic here that The Catholic Church alone may exempt The Catholic Church alone from accountability and norming because JESUS SAID that The Catholic Church alone is (well, there is a long chain of things claimed, often of no relevance to accountability). Well, then there is one unavoidable and absolutely mandated question: WHERE? So far, none has been able to quote a single verse to support that claim that Jesus promised/authorized/exempted The Catholic Church. Specifically, particularly, exclusively, perpetually.

All this seems moot to whether Jesus specifically, particularly and exclusively made all the claims and exceptions herein noted by Catholics specifically to The Catholic Church.

Actually, they called themselves “Christians.”
Although you have provided no responses to any of the questions I presented against your position, I’m going to break these responses up to give you due consideration to your post;

Actually, in Antioch, the reference to them as Christians came from society who recognized them as such because they where followers of Christ.
LATER, some who where neither Jesus or any Apostle, began to use the ADJECTIVE “catholic” (and also “orthodox”) to apply to the corpus of Christians. Protestants still do. BTW, it’s a grammatical mistake to capitolize an adjective, not that I should be talking too much about grammar!
Thanks for the correction, but I refer proper names with capitals regardless of the context. It’s a quark of mine.

No offense intended, but Protestants go by thousands of names and in recent years many do not like any longer to be referred to as “Protestants. Names seem to be a big deal among Protestants. Orthodox means correct or true; Catholic means “Universal”. The church became known by the characteristics the society at that time recognized in it. That is a trait of society, to “label” people. It seems an unworthy issue for you to waste you efforts with.

As long as you cannot offer credible scriptural support to respond to the issues I’ve raised, your accusations are baseless with no credibility at all. Every claim Jesus made was a proclamation or attestation particularly, specifically and exclusively with the authority of the Father. When it comes to the Church He established, Scripture tells us what authority Jesus extended to His Church through the Apostles who were His initial Church from the time they became His disciples. Scripture shows us the establishment of the initial hierarchy as well and scripture tells us His Church will continue until His return. If you need verses, please say so, but I believe you may already be aware of at least some of them.

Again my brother, you have made an incorrect conclusion based on the infallibility of the TEACHINGS of the faith. Yours is a accusation based on a general “catch all” opinion and is wrong. No where and by no one does the Catholic Church make such a blanket claim. If however, you believe in scripture, you must believe the covenant Jesus made with His Church. To disregard any of scripture is to disregard all of scripture as the Inspired Word of God. Once again that covenant of never abandoning her, the guidance of the Holy Spirit until His return and her protection from failure over the gates of hell support the very infallibility that is recognized but no more than of the teachings of the faith and the power to strengthen the faith through the support of His word. Do you really believe that the Most High-Priest can not or will not reconcile with His Church in any matters, good or evil? DO you believe He had nothing to do with these matters in the past or present or as the future brings? Jesus warned us of the problems just as He proclaimed Salvation and He is fully aware of everything that goes on both within and outside of His Church. You have to accept according to scripture, the authority given to His Church and the guidance given to His Church or you reject all of His Word and that also is His proclamation.

continued…
 
The accountability of the Catholic Church is and always will be before Jesus, not man who is and always has been known as a flawed creature suffered of sin. Neither the pope nor anyone else is exempt from error or sin in any matter outside the teachings of the faith and to say otherwise leaves question and even implied accusations of the following;
· Jesus incapability to oversee and tend to His Church.
· Jesus failure to hold to the covenant He made with His Church to remain with her and guide Her through the Holy Spirit.
· if not guided by the Holy Spirit, all of scripture being the Inspired Word of God would be questionable as it was the ECFs and their successors who determined the contents of the Bible as being the Inspired Word of God. The same ECFs who in their writings attest to the teaching of the Church AND the same who gave recognition to the Church officially adopting her already recognized identity as the “Catholic Church”. Historically it became known as the Catholic Church but you questioning when Jesus referred to it as such has no significance. Let me put it this way, if you wish to abide by scripture in this way, provide credible scriptural support against what I have said here and in the past posts I wrote in response to you. I only ask you justify the establishment of any of the many non-Catholic Christian Faiths with there independent doctrines or beliefs. I say this to you as my Christian brother to raise this questions for sincere consideration, as scripture tells us;
1 Peter CH3; 15…Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, 16 but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.
  • Apostolic Succession, even if true and even if The Catholic Church could verify such, is moot to our discussion of accountability and infalliblity.
First of all, you should know whether it is true or not. Secondly, it is only with Apostolic Succession and the laying of Hands as is scriptural, the true teachings can be passed on in their fullness and consistency. I’ve already addressed the issue of infallibility as well as accountability in the previous post so I will not repeat myself.
  1. Jesus made promises, although not to The Catholic Church. He never promised or authorized it for anything, about anything, concerning anything, for anything, at any time, about any matter, in any regard. He never even just mentioned it in passing about nothing at all. Strange, don’t you think, if it was to be for all perpetuity, the infallible, unaccountable, mouth of God? The sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, and all must accept whatever it and it alone says “with docility?”
I think it strange you ignore a great deal of proclamations in scripture. If you follow the lineage of the Catholic Church historically you will be able to get beyond your issue of the name and concentrate on pertinent issues rather than the word “Catholic”. And to which Church did He make His covenant? Does any protestant Christian Faith have the lineage of scriptural teachings to Apostolic times? No.

**Mat. Ch16; 15-19 “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered, “**Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.****”

***John CH20; ***21 (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. 23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Ephesians CH4
; 1 “I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body (the Church) and one Spirit (Holy Spirit); as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism***.”***

Matthew CH28; 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

continued…
 
John CH16; 12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. 14 He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. 15 All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you***.***

Acts Ch20; 28 “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

John CH17; 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. 20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
.
1 Timothy CH3; 13 For they that have ministered well, shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 14 These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth
.

Luke CH10; 16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.****

Colossians CH1; 18 “And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy: 19 Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father, that all fullness should dwell; 20 And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven**.
There are many other verses if you need to to be referred to them.
  1. Yes, we all agree that God promised to teach and lead. And yes, I think there is a consensus that God will alway teach and lead inerrantly. But here’s where you make an amazing and entirely illogical and unbiblical leap: ERGO, The Catholic Church alone is an infallible STUDENT and FOLLOWER.
Where did Jesus say that? You seem to have Teacher and students mixed up, you seem to be confusing Leader with followers. Have you read at least the first 3 chapters of the Bible? IF so, then you know that even in a perfect world, under perfect conditions, even among sinless students and followers, your premise is baseless. God was an inerrant Teacher and Leader - and yet 100% of the objects of such were FALLIBLE students and followers, and yes, God DID hold them accountable. If you will recall your Sunday School days, God ALWAYS inerrantly taught and lead but recall if God’s people ERGO were infallible/unaccountable students and followers?
It is you have teacher and student mixed up. Does not scripture tell us Jesus directed the Apostles to go forth and TEACH all nations? Are not the faithful directed to abide by the teachings of Christ through His Church? Do you fit in that consensus and believe God will always teach and lead without error? The Catholic Church is an infallible teacher OF THE FAITH to the faithful under Jesus as its High Priest. But perhaps you have something from scripture to support your opposition to this?

You see, that is one of the issues I raised with you that you have avoided to respond to. There is no perfect world and Jesus was very clear to point out there would be times of corruption both in and out of His church. But where did He say man would have to intercede and man would be able to resolve those issues and man would be empowered by Him to change doctrine and elimenate what man could not accept in faith? Scripturally, it was my understanding He asked for perseverence in faith but tokeep from schisms as one body of faithful. Am I wrong? Show me where Jesus turns over His authority to purge His Church of the very corruption and deceit He warns us will come about not just in but out side His Church?

you refer to scripture, show me where that is?

Continued…
 
Jesus never so much as even mentioned The Catholic Church. Nowhere does He state that it and it itself alone, exclusively, particularly, is or ever would be infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever IT and it itself alone says is just to be accepted “with docility.”

Jesus warned of false teachers. Jesus embraces accountability. 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.

IF you are deserting The Catholic Church and insisting that error CAN arise but EVENTUALLY before His
return be corrected (NOT a Catholic view, it’s actually the Mormon view), then you embrace that it should be accountable.
All of this I have answered earlier in this response to you so I will not go over it in detail again. And as I raised to points of Jesus’ warning us of these issues, you are certainly correct and apparently agree with me that Jesus warned of these deceits and corruptions. In fact, Luther himself was one of those who came out of the Catholic Church and taught a faith according to his own believes and disbeliefs changing some of the teachings as they were handed down. His wrong was not justified by the corrupt men that were in the Church at that time nor was the corruption of those men in the teachings of Christ, but in their own sins. And as far as “deserting the Catholic Church by insisting error Can arise”, I did that for 25 years and it was through Scripture and my research in seeking the truth, I was shamefully proven wrong for such. As far as error and infallibility of the Church is concerned you would serve yourself well by reading more deeply into what infallibility is and how it is determined in this sense ;

CCC #890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. …To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

Refer to vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

continued
 
last of continued posts;

“Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree: The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal. 2. Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV). 3. Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested. 4 Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.”
Refer to: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm for more complete information.
 
so again I ask you;

as far as Sola Scriptura is concerned; we know scripture tells us Jesus made a covenant to never abandon His Church, that she would never fall and that she would always be guided by the Holy Spirit until His return; Hence the requirment for apostolic succession. We also know according to scripture that in all things Jesus maintains primacy and that by the Father’s will, all things He shall reconcile to Himself. He even went as far as to warn us of the deceit and corruption that would arise at times both from outside and within His Church including the distortion of His Word and the deception of the many, yet asks for perseverance.

Based on the principles of sola scriptura, who has in the past or does possess the righteousness to question the commitment and ability of our Lord to oversee the Church He founded with His blood, and so love her in her devotion and purge her of her corruption as, how and when He determines appropriate to Himself?

Has Our Lord not always had the authority to reconcile all things in heaven and on earth to Himself according to His Word and our Father in Heaven? Does man know better than God and can man do better than God overseeing His own Church for man to believe his own intervention is required to “reestablish” and modify church precepts? Can any man explain how the existence of so many “Christian” faiths is not a testament to man’s weakness of faith and trust in our Savior’s abilities to oversee His Church of which He has always been the High Priest?

No where in Scripture does it say the Church Jesus founded would end, become corrupt and fail or be reestablished or revised at any time or by any man before His return. Just the opposite is true. God proclaims through scripture everything but these things will occur. Yet many have been mislead into accepting the personal beliefs and disbeliefs of individual men and women who did not have the faith or knowledge to accept the complete teachings of our Lord, establishing their own faiths through their adopted beliefs based on individual interpretations.

If one cannot provide justifiable answers to these questions perhaps further thought into the issues raised would be in order.

If in fact the Catholic Church was not the true Church founded by Jesus as some were lead to believe, one would have to know which Faith was the True Faith. After all, there must be one (and only one) because the Bible attests to it and to the fact it must be visible, obvious, and is of only “one God, one faith, one body and one baptism”… So which one was established by Jesus through the Apostles and their successors and has the lineage in the teachings of scripture since His ministry without interruption as Jesus’ covenant attests AND has all the Characteristics to identify it Biblically?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top