Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[jlhargus]

Hi j. Writ also tells us that which is built upon the apostles foundation will be judged, that indeed there will be some hay and stubble.

[1Cor3:8 Now **he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s buildinglet every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.]

True Ben, but the judgment in 1Cor3:8-17 is for individuals being judged, at death, the saved and unsaved for their works. For the saved their good works would be gold, silver, precious stones. Their unfruitful works would be wood, hay, stubble. Works done more for love of self than love of God or neighbor. That person would suffer loss but is saved, as by fire. Saved as by fire would be painful, we call this Purgatory.

Those unsaved individuals, without repentance, who defile the temple of God, meaning their body, God shall destroy. Defiling would be mortal sin, sending them to hell. [Mt10:28 And **fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.]

For sure the CC , the O and P church have some infallible, grounding “truth”. Where anyone of those churches have “all” truth does not mean there may not be added truth, discernments, practices etc.

All the scriptures concerning guidance and truth must be taken together. It is one thing to say the Holy Ghost perfectly guides, it is another to say the church can only perfectly follow. Blessings

I agree Ben, but I didn’t say the Church can only perfectly follow. Yet it teaches infallibly on faith and morals it can’t add to the gospel, it can add practices in line with the gospel.

There is some truth in all denominations some more than others. I would say whatever is taught and is true would be infallible otherwise it couldn’t be truth. But only those who are in union with the holder of the keys, St Rock & successors, sent by Christ, have been guaranteed the fullness of truth, by Christ Himself. Sending the Holy Spirit to guide them into all Truth. As writ tells us and calls that Church the pillar and ground of truth. If the Church taught error on faith and morals it couldn’t be a pillar and ground of truth, could it?

8320

 

[SyCarl]

Hi Sy,

Thanks for your response.

You say that Sy, but I would suggest that it is much harder to do than to just say. In my experience, it is extremely easy for a Protestant to post a quote from a Father which makes it APPEAR that the Father supported some version of Sola Scriptura. However, when the ‘other’ quotes from that same Father are posted on the same subject, that Father does not look so Sola Scriptura anymore. If you think that I am wrong, then please post a quote from a Father that you think supports the idea that ‘everything we need to know is clearly set out in Scripture’. Also, if you would, could you please post where it was that you found the quote. We will then be able to look at the other things that that Father says about Scripture/Tradition.

From Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine which I initially started read thinking that it would be a summary of his doctrinal thought but which is largely a work on how to interpret Scripture.

1. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life, to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

He states that all matters concerning faith and manner of life are plainly set down in Scripture. The easy passages should be used to interpret the more difficult ones
.
I am aware that Augustine said things like :

As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.

(Letter 54 to Januarius, Chapter 1, Paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/1102054.htm

However, if you read the rest of the letter you see that he is dealing with customary observances or practices rather than doctrine. I give greater weight myself to a work which was written to help interpreting Scripture. In addition, Augustine differentiated on the authority due to Scripture and other sources.

I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not yet see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly.
But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely those which in the Church are called canonical, it must be believed without reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.

(Letter 147, To Paulina), Fathers of the Church Volume 20, The Catholic University of America Press, 1953, pp 170 & 173

Unfortunately I cannot provide a link to this as the preview I read, before buying the book, no longer contains this letter.

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

continued

John Chrysostum in his Homilies on Second Thessalonians said:

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.

(Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

Again I am aware of what he said elsewhere in the same series of homilies
.

So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.
Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther.

(Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 4, v.15)
newadvent.org/fathers/23054.htm

However he does not give examples and, so far, I am not aware of any doctrines he established from tradition.

We can also see what he says in his Homilies on Second Timothy about chapter 3 verses 16-17.

" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". All what Scripture? All that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child you have known the holy Scriptures”. All such, then, is given by inspiration of God; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
“For doctrine”. For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.
“That the man of God may be perfect”. For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote toTimothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!
“Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but thoroughly furnished.

Homilies on Second Timothy, 9 verses 16-17)

(newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

He says we have the Scriptures and, if we would learn anything, we may learn it from them. He doesn’t say from the church but from Scripture. He says this applies to both Timothy and to us

 

[SyCarl]

Could you please post the quote from Cyprian which you think supports his defiance of Pope Stephen, and explain what you think it means, and then we can look at the rest of what he wrote on the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Also again, could you post where it was that you found the quote. I can assure you SY, that Cyprian’s ‘attitude’ towards the Bishop of Rome was VERY, VERY different from what Luther’s.

God Bless You Sy, Topper

From Cyprian’s letter to Pompey

1…since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God. For among other matters, which were either haughtily assumed, or were not pertaining to the matter, or contradictory to his own view, which he unskilfully and without foresight wrote, he moreover added this saying: “If any one, therefore, come to you from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated (or done) which has not been handed down, to wit, that hands be imposed on him for repentance; since the heretics themselves, in their own proper character, do not baptize such as come to them from one another, but only admit them to communion.
2. He forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is, he judged the baptism of all heretics to be just and lawful. And although special heresies have special baptisms and different sins, he, holding communion with the baptism of all, gathered up the sins of all, heaped together into his own bosom. And he charged that nothing should be innovated except what had been handed down; as if he were an innovator, who, holding the unity, claims for the one Church one baptism; and not manifestly he who, forgetful of unity, adopts the lies and the contagions of a profane washing…Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done … If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed… So that no one ought to defame the apostles as if they had approved of the baptisms of heretics, or had communicated with them without the Church’s baptism…
3. … if there is only one baptism, which is with us, and is within, and is granted of the divine condescension to the Church alone, what obstinacy is that, or what presumption, to prefer human tradition to divine ordinance,…
4. Certainly an excellent and lawful tradition is set before us by the teaching of our brother Stephen, which may afford us a suitable authority! For in the same place of his epistle he has added and continued: “Since those who are specially heretics do not baptize those who come to them from one another, but only receive them to communion.” To this point of evil has the Church of God and spouse of Christ been developed, that she follows the examples of heretics; that for the purpose of celebrating the celestial sacraments, light should borrow her discipline from darkness, and Christians should do that which antichrists do. But what is that blindness of soul, what is that degradation of faith, to refuse to recognise the unit… But as no heresy at all, and equally no schism, being without, can have the sanctification of saving baptism, why has the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen broken forth to such an extent, as to contend that sons are born to God from the baptism of Marcion; moreover, of Valentinus and Apelles, and of others who blaspheme against God the Father; and to say that remission of sins is granted in the name of Jesus Christ where blasphemy is uttered against the Father and against Christ the Lord God?.. Does he give glory to God, who communicates with the baptism of Marcion? Does he give glory to God, who judges that remission of sins is granted among those who blaspheme against God? Does he give glory to God, who affirms that sons are born to God without, of an adulterer and a harlot? Does he give glory to God, who does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine law, but maintains heresies against the Church? Does he give glory to God, who, a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians, thinks that the priests of God, who support the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, are to be excommunicated?

newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

continued

From the Seventh Council of Carthage

Concerning the Baptism of Heretics. The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics.

Prooemium.— When Stephen, Bishop of Rome, Had by His Letters Condemned the Decrees of the African Council on the Baptism of Heretics, Cyprian Lost NoTime in Holding Another Council at Carthage with a Greater Number of Bishops. Having Therefore Summoned Eighty-Seven Bishops from Africa, Numidia, andMauritania, Who Assembled at Carthage in the Kalends of September, a.d. 258, This Third Council on the Same Matter of Baptism Was Then Celebrated; At the Beginning of Which, After, the Letters on Either Side Had Been Read, Cyprian, by Implication, Condemns the Assumption of Stephen.

When, in the kalends of September, a great many bishops from the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, had met together at Carthage, together with the presbyters and deacons, and a considerable part of the congregation who were also present; and when the letter of Jubaianus written to Cyprian had been read, as also the reply of Cyprian to Jubaianus, about baptizing heretics, and what the same Jubaianus had subsequently rejoined to Cyprian,— Cyprian said: You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our co-bishop has written to me, taking counsel of my poor intelligence concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, as well as what I wrote in answer to him, decreeing, to wit, what we have once and again and frequently determined, that hereticswho come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the baptism of the Church. Moreover, another letter of Jubaianus has also been read to you, wherein, replying, in accordance with his sincere and religious devotion, to my letter, he not only acquiesced in what I had said, but, confessing that he had been instructed thereby, he returned thanks for it. It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the …government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Cyprian, being consulted by a Numidian bishop, Quintus, sent him Ep. lxx, and replied to his difficulties (Ep. lxxi). The spring council at Carthage in the following year, 256, was more numerous than usual, and sixty-one bishops signed the conciliar letter to the pope explaining their reasons for rebaptizing, and claiming that it was a question upon which bishops were free to differ. This was not Stephen’s view, and he immediately issued a decree, couched apparently in very peremptory terms, that no “innovation” was to be made (this is taken by some moderns to mean “no new baptism”), but the Roman tradition of merely laying hands on converted heretics in sign of absolution must be everywhere observed, on pain of excommunication. This letter was evidently addressed to the Africanbishops, and contained some severe censures on Cyprian himself. Cyprian writes to Jubainus that he is defending the one Church, the Church founded on Peter-Why then is he called a prevaricator of the truth, a traitor to the truth;? (Ep. lxxiii, 11). To the same correspondent he sends Epp. lxx, lxxi, lxxii; he makes nolaws for others, but retains his own liberty. He sends also a copy of his newly written treatise “De Bono Patientiae”. To Pompeius, who had asked to see a copy ofStephen’s rescript, he writes with great violence: “As you read it, you will note his error more and more clearly: in approving the baptism of all the heresies, he has heaped into his own breast the sins of all of them; a fine tradition indeed! What blindness of mind, what depravity!” — “ineptitude”, “hard obstinacy” — such are the expressions which run from the pen of one who declared that opinion on the subject was free, and who in this very letter explains that a bishop must never be quarrelsome, but meek and teachable. In September, 256, a yet larger council assembled at Carthage. All agreed with Cyprian; Stephen was not mentioned… minutes have come down to us in the Cyprianic correspondence under the title of “Sententiae Episcoporum”. But the messengers sent to Rome with this document were refused an audience and even denied all hospitality by the pope. They returned incontinently to Carthage, and Cyprian tried for support from the East. He wrote to the famous Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Firmilian, sending him the treatise “De Unitate” and the correspondence on the baptismal question. By the middle of November Firmilian’s reply had arrived, and it has come down to us in a translation made at the timein Africa. Its tone is, if possible, more violent than that of Cyprian.

newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

It seems to me that Cyprian denies any authority by Stephen to decide that baptized by heretics do not need to be baptized when they come to the Catholic Church. It really matters little what Cyprian might say elsewhere about the power and authority of the Bishop of Rome since, when it came to the crunch in a disagreement, he did not recognize Rome’s authority over another bishop. He refused to accept Stephen’s tradition unless it was in Scripture.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Sy,

Thanks for your response.

continued

From the Seventh Council of Carthage

newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

It seems to me that Cyprian denies any authority by Stephen to decide that baptized by heretics do not need to be baptized when they come to the Catholic Church. It really matters little what Cyprian might say elsewhere about the power and authority of the Bishop of Rome since, when it came to the crunch in a disagreement, he did not recognize Rome’s authority over another bishop. He refused to accept Stephen’s tradition unless it was in Scripture.

In response to my challenge to post a quote from a Father who supported Sola Scriptura, you have chosen to post a quote from St. Cyprian and claim that he “denies any authority by Pope Stephen”, that he “did not recognize Rome’s authority over another bishop”, and that “he refused to accept Stephen’s tradition unless it was in Scripture”.

Interestingly you also state that “It really matters little what Cyprian might say elsewhere about the power and authority of the Bishop of Rome”. In other words, you have taken the position that it doesn’t matter what else Cyprian said about the Authority of the Pope, you are going to stick to your guns claiming that THIS quote governs over all of the rest of Cyprians comments on the subject, and that it is YOUR quote which provides the correct context for all the rest.
In just a few minutes of searching, I have found a dozen or so Cyprian quotes which very directly and explicitly refute your position. In addition, it is interesting that Cyprian was misrepresented at the Leipzig debate. That misunderstanding was corrected immediately.

There is so much to post regarding Cyprians obedience to the Pope that it will take me a day or two to pull it all together in an organized manner so that it directly addresses your contention. Until then and when you read what I am going to post, I would ask that you keep an open mind.

God Bless You Sy, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Sy,

Thanks for your response.

continued

From the Seventh Council of Carthage

newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

It seems to me that Cyprian denies any authority by Stephen to decide that baptized by heretics do not need to be baptized when they come to the Catholic Church. It really matters little what Cyprian might say elsewhere about the power and authority of the Bishop of Rome since, when it came to the crunch in a disagreement, he did not recognize Rome’s authority over another bishop. He refused to accept Stephen’s tradition unless it was in Scripture.

My challenge to you was to post one ECF quote which you thought supported Sola Scriptura. Instead, you chose to provide a quote from St. Cyprian and contend that he “denies any authority by [Pope] Stephen, that “he did not recognize Rome’s authority over another bishop”, and that “He refused to accept Stephen’s tradition unless it was in Scripture”. Furthermore, you claim that it doesn’t matter what else Cyprian might have said on the subject. Well, in fact, with just a few minutes of searching, I have found a dozen or so Cyprian quotes which very definitely and very explicitly refute your position.

Interestingly, Cyprian’s position on the authority of the Bishop of Rome was misrepresented at the Leipzig Debate in 1519. That misrepresentation was immediately corrected, from memory.

Due to the amount of material which refutes your contention, it might take a day or two to organize it into a readable post or two. Until then, and also when you read it, please have an open mind.

I would ask though in the meantime if you would post where it was that you learned that Cyprian took the position that you have stated. In other words, who was it specifically, or was it a website and if so, which one?

Until then Sy, God Bless You, Topper

Leipzig stuff next.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Sy,

**At Leipzig Luther claimed that Church Father Cyprian supported his view of Papal Authority, which at the time was that the Bishop of Rome had no authority outside of his own diocese. **

“St. Cyprian, who sets upon the heretics that undertake to destroy the head, in order that they may with impunity sow their errors among men, is not to the point at all. For Cyprian is not speaking of the Roman Bishop, but of the head of any diocese. If our excellent Doctor (Eck) will stand by his authority Cyprian, we shall close the debate this minute. For Cyprian never salutes the Roman Pontiff in any other way than as his very dear brother.” Martin Luther, W. H. T. Dau, “The Leipzig Debate in 1519” pg 136

Luther comments that the debate would be over immediately if Eck would simply understand Cyprian’s position and accept it. The question then becomes whether Luther would change his position once it was pointed out that he was wrong.

Eck responds:

“In the third place, explaining a statement of Cyprian in his second epistle to Cornelius, he says that sacerdotal unity had it’s origin in the Roman, not in the Eastern Church. At the reverend father (Luther) failed to mention that Cyprian has in a preceding chapter called the Roman Church the chair of Peter and the principal church.” Martin Luther, W. H. T. Dau, “The Leipzig Debate in 1519” pg 141

To which Luther responded:

“In my fourth rejoinder, regarding the testimony of Cyprian, I said that he is speaking of any bishop. **Eck replied that the text shows clearly that he spoke of the Roman Pope Cornelius in opposition to the Novations. I answer: I do not care whether he does; but I have not this letter in my memory. **But this I know that St. Cyprian in many letters is occupied only with showing that the head or bishop of each church is appointed by the vote of the people, aided by the advice of the neighboring bishops.” Martin Luther, W. H. T. Dau, “The Leipzig Debate in 1519” pg. 147

Jaroslav Pelikan, again, a Lutheran Church Historian proves this point:

“Although Luther’s hermeneutical law of the single sense of Scripture led him to apply it (the term “rock” in Matthew 16:18) only to Peter, it provided “irrefutable proof” that Christ had conferred the primacy not only to Peter (according to “many Latin” writers) through him on Clement and all the subsequent popes. The Church of Rome was different from all other churches in this: its head was “the same as the head of the Catholic Church.” And Peter was different from all the other apostles in this: he alone had confessed Christ as the Son of God; and while the power to forgive sin and bind and loose had been confired to all, the “feeding” of the Christian flock and the “confirming of the dogmas that pertain to the Christian faith” belonged solely to Peter and his successors, which made the pope “the vicar of Christ”. He remained this also if he moved from Rome, although it was “fitting and proper” that he be there; the “new lie” that Peter had never been in Rome, as well as the objection that not Rome but Jerusalem had the real primacy, did not merit serious attention…**But the Protestant attempt to exploit the variants in Cyprian’s “On the Unity of the Church” for polemical advantage could not stand up to a careful explication of the text: Although Cyprian was speaking of the apostles as “equals,” he also said that “the unity of the church has its origins from one, namely, Peter.” **Jaroslav Pelikan, pg 271

Clearly Luther was wrong about Cyprian, just as he was wrong in so much else that he claimed at Leipzig. Cyprian, like all of the Fathers of the Church, supported Catholic beliefs and opposed those of the Protestant “reformers”.

In all honesty Sy, early Christians did NOT become Saints or Fathers of the Church, let alone one of 33 Doctors of the Church if they deny the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

God Bless You Sy, Topper

 

[benhur]

True Ben, but the judgment in 1Cor3:8-17 is for individuals being judged, at death, the saved and unsaved for their works. For the saved their good works would be gold, silver, precious stones. Their unfruitful works would be wood, hay, stubble. Works done more for love of self than love of God or neighbor. That person would suffer loss but is saved, as by fire. Saved as by fire would be painful, we call this Purgatory.

Hi j,

While 1 Cor3:12 can be applied to every individual, the context is primarily in the work of building the kingdom . But yes, we are all living stones as per Peter. Paul is speaking of ministry, and certainly this scripture can allude to teaching and doctrine.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Col 2:8

Paul was very conscious of ministers that followed his work , as he also followed some others. I think Corinthians says this. It is more than just what we do as Christians after new birth. It is in regards to the ministry (works) that comes with new birth. We are to be disciples, even disciplining others. We all affect one another in the building.

“So then, no more boasting about human leaders!. Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.”

I do not see infallibility here. Those who have been ordained by the apostles and subsequent appointments must continue to "prove’’ themselves, precisely because they are fallible.

I agree Ben, but I didn’t say the Church can only perfectly follow. Yet it teaches infallibly on faith and morals it can’t add to the gospel, it can add practices in line with the gospel.

Sorry, me thinks you speak in circles. It seems to me you say she can only follow perfectly (infallibly on faith and morals).

If the Church taught error on faith and morals it couldn’t be a pillar and ground of truth, could it?

Sorry. I grew into a Church that had three aspects , the Catholic, the Orthodox and the Protestant. All three claim a history of divine guidance. I have been also made aware, even by our Corinthians, that one is predisposed to say ones own church is OK, unlike the church down the corner. Quite "natural’’ but not grounded on true wisdom.

I do not prescribe to the notion that if you error on any one thing you then disqualify all truthful grounding. It is not all or nothing for many of our differences.

We know for a fact, per Jesus’s own words, that Judaism had not only some bad practices and divisions but even the leaven of some bad doctrine as well . Yet, yet He still says, “Salvation is of the Jews”. Judaism was still indeed the One and True covenant, institution of the time.

Therefore, I propose we need to adjust our understanding of just what is infallible , and just what is the Church, beyond the Roman Catholic sectarian view.

Blessings

 

[SyCarl]

Hi Sy,

Thanks for your response.

My challenge to you was to post one ECF quote which you thought supported Sola Scriptura. Instead, you chose to provide a quote from St. Cyprian and contend that he “denies any authority by [Pope] Stephen, that “he did not recognize Rome’s authority over another bishop”, and that “He refused to accept Stephen’s tradition unless it was in Scripture”. Furthermore, you claim that it doesn’t matter what else Cyprian might have said on the subject. Well, in fact, with just a few minutes of searching, I have found a dozen or so Cyprian quotes which very definitely and very explicitly refute your position.

Interestingly, Cyprian’s position on the authority of the Bishop of Rome was misrepresented at the Leipzig Debate in 1519. That misrepresentation was immediately corrected, from memory.

Due to the amount of material which refutes your contention, it might take a day or two to organize it into a readable post or two. Until then, and also when you read it, please have an open mind.

I would ask though in the meantime if you would post where it was that you learned that Cyprian took the position that you have stated. In other words, who was it specifically, or was it a website and if so, which one?

Until then Sy, God Bless You, Topper

Leipzig stuff next.

You asked for both fathers on sola scriptura and on Cyprian. UIhave posted on both. They were in several posts due to length. see posts 397 and 398

I don’t recall where I first read about Cyprian’s dispute with Stephen. It was on some website but I didn’t really remember which one. Then I started reading the fathers for myself on New Advent and read more on it.

 

[SyCarl]

Hi Sy,

**At Leipzig Luther claimed that Church Father Cyprian supported his view of Papal Authority, which at the time was that the Bishop of Rome had no authority outside of his own diocese. **

“St. Cyprian, who sets upon the heretics that undertake to destroy the head, in order that they may with impunity sow their errors among men, is not to the point at all. For Cyprian is not speaking of the Roman Bishop, but of the head of any diocese. If our excellent Doctor (Eck) will stand by his authority Cyprian, we shall close the debate this minute. For Cyprian never salutes the Roman Pontiff in any other way than as his very dear brother.” Martin Luther, W. H. T. Dau, “The Leipzig Debate in 1519” pg 136

Luther comments that the debate would be over immediately if Eck would simply understand Cyprian’s position and accept it. The question then becomes whether Luther would change his position once it was pointed out that he was wrong.

Eck responds:

“In the third place, explaining a statement of Cyprian in his second epistle to Cornelius, he says that sacerdotal unity had it’s origin in the Roman, not in the Eastern Church. At the reverend father (Luther) failed to mention that Cyprian has in a preceding chapter called the Roman Church the chair of Peter and the principal church.” Martin Luther, W. H. T. Dau, “The Leipzig Debate in 1519” pg 141

To which Luther responded:

“In my fourth rejoinder, regarding the testimony of Cyprian, I said that he is speaking of any bishop. **Eck replied that the text shows clearly that he spoke of the Roman Pope Cornelius in opposition to the Novations. I answer: I do not care whether he does; but I have not this letter in my memory. **But this I know that St. Cyprian in many letters is occupied only with showing that the head or bishop of each church is appointed by the vote of the people, aided by the advice of the neighboring bishops.” Martin Luther, W. H. T. Dau, “The Leipzig Debate in 1519” pg. 147

Jaroslav Pelikan, again, a Lutheran Church Historian proves this point:

“Although Luther’s hermeneutical law of the single sense of Scripture led him to apply it (the term “rock” in Matthew 16:18) only to Peter, it provided “irrefutable proof” that Christ had conferred the primacy not only to Peter (according to “many Latin” writers) through him on Clement and all the subsequent popes. The Church of Rome was different from all other churches in this: its head was “the same as the head of the Catholic Church.” And Peter was different from all the other apostles in this: he alone had confessed Christ as the Son of God; and while the power to forgive sin and bind and loose had been confired to all, the “feeding” of the Christian flock and the “confirming of the dogmas that pertain to the Christian faith” belonged solely to Peter and his successors, which made the pope “the vicar of Christ”. He remained this also if he moved from Rome, although it was “fitting and proper” that he be there; the “new lie” that Peter had never been in Rome, as well as the objection that not Rome but Jerusalem had the real primacy, did not merit serious attention…**But the Protestant attempt to exploit the variants in Cyprian’s “On the Unity of the Church” for polemical advantage could not stand up to a careful explication of the text: Although Cyprian was speaking of the apostles as “equals,” he also said that “the unity of the church has its origins from one, namely, Peter.” **Jaroslav Pelikan, pg 271

Clearly Luther was wrong about Cyprian, just as he was wrong in so much else that he claimed at Leipzig. Cyprian, like all of the Fathers of the Church, supported Catholic beliefs and opposed those of the Protestant “reformers”.

In all honesty Sy, early Christians did NOT become Saints or Fathers of the Church, let alone one of 33 Doctors of the Church if they deny the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

God Bless You Sy, Topper

You haven’t really addressed the material I gave from Cyprian himself and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Whatever Cyprian may have said about the Bishop of Rome previously doesn’t go very far when we see what he said and did when he found himself in opposition to Stephen. At that point he refused to accept Stephen’s directions and authority over him…

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13782510]Hi Jon,
I hope you and your family had a wonderful Easter.

I have indeed. He is risen! How could I not?
Hope you have been blessed as well.

I do

n’t understand this consistent comment about the EO Schism, about how THAT is what needs to be taken care of ‘first’, meaning BEFORE the Reformation communities could take any action. I can’t believe that that is what you really mean, so if it is not, then please explain what you mean.

If you read my post, I never said first. What I said was that that reconciliation would go a long way to help end other divisions within the One True Church.

Personally, I don’t think that the Reformation communities should just sit back and expect everyone else to heal THEIR divisions and before Protestantism can do something. It seems passive to a fault. In addition, when you consider the ever increasing pace of denominalization, I don’t think that Protestantism can wait for somebody else to do the ‘hard thing’. Again, I believe that Protestantism needs to heal its own divisions. Then it could approach the RCC and Orthodox from a position of Protestant Unity. We at the same time could be working with the Orthodox to heal the Schism.

I’ve always believed that our respective leaders can walk and chew gum at the same time, so there is no reason why concurrent dialogue can’t continue.

A Schism does not justify a full blown heresy. In 1000 years the Orthodox have splintered into ONLY 17 or so separate doctrinally independent communions. Compare that to how many Protestant communions in ONLY 500 years. The reason for the statistical difference is that in the Orthodox Schism, they took a LOT more of Christ’s Truth with Orthodox Christian discuss whether or not they are splintered. What I will reject is the false notion impression that protestantism is/was a single communion that splintered. In the literal sense, very few of the so-called protestant groups were present at the formal protest, or are even splinters from the ones that were there.

Your often mentioned EO argument sure makes it seem so.

I only use that to point to the fact that the Church had a history of division long before the Reformation.

Protestantism, as has been proven by its relatively short history within Christianity, has absolutely NO way to protect any type or sense of doctrinal purity. Lutherans believe differently from Calvinists

And they always have. Calvinists believe differently from Catholics, too.

who believe differently from Methodists who believe differently from Presbyterians who believe differently from JW’s, who believe

The inclusion of JW’s is a polemical tactic, as you know they are not Christian.

NONE of you SHOULD have ANY assurance that your community is the one that ‘gets it right’, or has the most pure set of doctrines, or is the ‘most Scriptural’ or……………… That is because the means by which you ALL determine Truth (SS) is fundamentally flawed.

Then the CC has no assurance since you are in schism from the other patriarchs. as you can see, the argument bears no weight.

Of course a lot of these communities BELIEVE that they have certainty, but then so do the JWs and the Mormons.

and so do the Jews and Muslims, if you wish to include non-Christian groups.

IF the individual Protestant were to look at the overall doctrinal confusion within Protestantism, they would realize that they have NO right personally to ‘certainty’.

Back to the confusion argument. How is the Catholic to have certainty when there is so much doctrinal confusion within churches that use Scripture and Tradition? Again, Baptists are not confused by the existence of the Methodist Church across the street, any more than the Orthodox Christian is confused by the Catholic Church near by.

Exactly Jon, none of them and I do mean NONE of them, care one bit about the opinion of the Catholic Church, the Church that Christ established for THEM. That’s a problem. They want to claim that they are somehow part of it, but refuse to listen to it.

None of them hold the view that the Catholic Church is only and exclusively the one True Church. I don’t, Orthodoxy doesn’t, none do. None of them think that Christ established the institution of one bishop as the totality of the one true Church. Why should they?

It seems that you place a certain importance on Tradition (with a big ‘T’). However, one cannot throw aside the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and establish your own ‘tradition’, and then claim that since you have a tradition (not The Tradition

), that you are safe from error. Abandoning the Apostolic Succession basically INSURES that you will fall into error.

The Lutheran Reformers, and others, believed that the CC abandoned some of the Tradition of the pre-Schism Catholic Church. You see, stating these things makes no difference.

continued

 

[JonNC]

That’s right. But how do you KNOW that your version of the Eucharist is correct? Is it because your community based interpretation of Scriptures convinces you? You might have gotten the right answer, but through the wrong means, and while you might have gotten the right answer on one issue, you have no assurance that you got it on any other matter.

That’s easy, “This is my body”. Plus, that’s what the Church has always taught. One need only read the Fathers on the matter.

Here you bring up the issue of the definition of “His Church”. The Holy Spirit is NOT going to lead ALL ecclesiastical communities into ALL Truth.

Indeed. Of course, I never claimed that He did. What I do know is that humans, in the sinful state, often misunderstand the Spirit. That doesn’t make the Spirit the author of “confusion”. If the Catholic catechism says,

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274** Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, **whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Now, even assuming a Catholic believes the last line regarding Christ entrusting grace to the Catholic church, it seems difficult to me how a Catholic can deny the first part, that the Spirit uses the communities as a means of salvation. Clearly, the Spirit is guiding them.

Once you have abandoned the One True Church that Christ intended for us ALL, then you are functioning from nothing more than some sort of ‘community based’ form of Private Interpretation.

You claim “abandon” as if it were an act. There is no such act with the vast majority of Christians not in communion with the pope. Abandon means to give something up, and the vast number of these Christians were never in communion with the pope to start with.

God Bless You Jon, Topper
And His blessings also with you.

Jon

 

[jlhargus]

Hi j, While 1 Cor3:12 can be applied to every individual, the context is primarily in the work of building the kingdom . But yes, we are all living stones as per Peter. Paul is speaking of ministry, and certainly this scripture can allude to teaching and doctrine.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Col 2:8

Paul was very conscious of ministers that followed his work , as he also followed some others. I think Corinthians says this. It is more than just what we do as Christians after new birth. It is in regards to the ministry (works) that comes with new birth. We are to be disciples, even disciplining others. We all affect one another in the building.

“So then, no more boasting about human leaders!. Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.”

I do not see infallibility here. Those who have been ordained by the apostles and subsequent appointments must continue to "prove’’ themselves, precisely because they are fallible.

I don’t see infallibility in 1Cor3:8-17 either. I certainly didn’t post there was. 1Cor 3-17 has nothing to do with infallibility nor the other two scriptures you posted. Actually Ben You brought up 1Cor3 in your previous post and I gave an answer in my previous post. Yes Paul is addressing ordained ministers in 1Cor3 and as you say it applies to all. He is warning them they will be judged by how they build, their works. Everyone’s works will be tried by fire. If they have unfruitful works, they will suffer lose. Although the person will be saved, it will be as though by fire. I posted previously we call that Purgatory. I said nothing about infallibility.

Sorry, me thinks you speak in circles. It seems to me you say she can only follow perfectly (infallibly on faith and morals).

I did say the Church is infallible on faith and morals. Its possible you misunderstood by, only. I did not mean to imply the church can or cannot perfectly follow because I don’t know in what way you mean. I would say as human beings we certainly do not always follow perfectly.

 

[jlhargus]

Sorry. I grew into a Church that had three aspects , the Catholic, the Orthodox and the Protestant. All three claim a history of divine guidance. I have been also made aware, even by our Corinthians, that one is predisposed to say ones own church is OK, unlike the church down the corner. Quite "natural’’ but not grounded on true wisdom.

I don’t really get what you a saying here Ben. Do you mean you now belong to a church that is a conglomeration of aspects from Catholic, Orthodox and thousands of Protestant denominations, and its called Corinthians??? I was baptized into an Evangelical non denomination, bible faith group, called Pleasant Gove Church of God. While I was happy there, through scripture I knew God established One True covenant institution. Long story short I came into that Church.

We know for a fact, per Jesus’s own words, that Judaism had not only some bad practices and divisions but even the leaven of some bad doctrine as well . Yet, yet He still says, “Salvation is of the Jews”. Judaism was still indeed the One and True covenant, institution of the time.

I am glad to see you posted, “Salvation is of the Jews” and Judaism was indeed the One and True covenant, institution of the time." At lest you recognize there was only One True covenant institution or Vineyard, OT. And that holds true in our time, there is still only One and True covenant institution or Vineyard, NT. Identifiable historically and scripturally as the Catholic Church.

Judaism had a teaching authority, in union with the High Priest, that could bind and loose as they sat in Moses’ seat Mt23:1-7. Christ sent a teaching authority, to teach till the end of the world, Mt28:16-20, which could bind and loose, in union with the holder of the keys, the Chair of Peter Mt16:15-19 & M18:18. The difference is the Jewish authority was not promised and given the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, as the NT One True covenant institution [Vineyard] was Jn16:12-13. See Lk20:9-19 Christ telling the Jewish leaders there will be a change of leaders in the Vineyard.

Paul even checked his teaching with that One True Covenant Vineyard to make sure he had not or was not running in vain.

[Gal 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And **I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.]

[Eph3:9 **And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:]

I do not prescribe to the notion that if you error on any one thing you then disqualify all truthful grounding. It is not all or nothing for many of our differences.

I certainly didn’t post, one error disqualifies all truthful grounding. Not to be smart, but how many errors or false doctrines would you prescribe to? If there is one false doctrine how can you be sure there are not more, how would you determine, with certitude, which are false and which are true?

Therefore, I propose we need to adjust our understanding of just what is infallible , and just what is the Church, beyond the Roman Catholic sectarian view.

Not to be flippant Ben, but I would view that as reducing infallibility and the Church to political correctness. Would you adjust your understanding, of just what is infallible, and just what is the Church, to a church teaching the following contradicting teachings? If not then how or who would decide which is true or false?

Bible alone community interpretation/bible alone individual interpretation, bible interprets self/bible doesn’t interpret self. Bible alone/bible and Tradition. OSAS/can lose salvation. OSAS if sin never saved/OSAS if murder still saved. Baptism washes away sin/baptism does not wash away sin. Believer’s baptism only/infant baptism. Baptize in the name of Jesus/baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptism symbolic/baptism not symbolic, Baptism necessary/Baptism not necessary, Born again the instant believe/Born again by water & the Spirit baptized, etc…

8811

 

[benhur]

I did say the Church is infallible on faith and morals. Its possible you misunderstood by, only. I did not mean to imply the church can or cannot perfectly follow because I don’t know in what way you mean. I would say as human beings we certainly do not always follow perfectly.

Hi j,

Well you say she is infallible because of the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide and that perfectly, to which I agree to the latter. So if the church is guided by another (the HS) , then the church must follow the Spirit. (not robotic). In that the CC implies about herself a perfect, unconditional following of the Spirit on faith and morals.

I reiterate that the warnings and admonitions to "prove yourself’’ as a teacher/prophet/church are given because they are fallible, and inerrancy is conditional on being in the Spirit on a matter. The Spirit is perfect in guidance, but our (church’s) perfect following is conditional.

The church is not robotic, on a guaranteed cruise control perfect on faith and morals. She definitely has something to look forward to, this unconditional being perfectly in Him as a body.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

benhur #402
Therefore, I propose we need to adjust our understanding of just what is infallible , and just what is the Church, beyond the Roman Catholic sectarian view.

You certainly do need to “adjust” your understanding by listening to Christ Himself, something you have failed to do, consistently, resulting in being stuck in a sectarian rut.

The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

**Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

So only the Catholic Church founded by Christ Himself holds and offers the fullness of His Truth and can teach infallibly on faith and on morals.

 

[benhur]

I don’t really get what you a saying here Ben. Do you mean you now belong to a church that is a conglomeration of aspects from Catholic, Orthodox and thousands of Protestant denominations, and its called Corinthians???

Hi j,

I was trying to respond to your question, “If the Church taught error on faith and morals it couldn’t be a pillar and ground of truth, could it?”. I answered from another direction ( other than looking for a perfect church to fulfill being pillar of truth). I took from what “is’’
that we have three types of ''churches” as the O’s and P’s and C’s. They indeed each contain and are grounded in truth, and are a pillar, even a candle of light to the world. That there are some differences in practice, even doctrine, does not diminish the pillar, the light. Of course if we were all perfect and united, the light might be “better”, but apparently His grace is still sufficient.

It would also be better if our reactions to our differences were more “spiritual”.This is where the Corinthians come in, to not boast in our leaders, in boasting of being of Peter and me of Paul etc… to “pacify those that contend” (Didache), "

I was baptized into an Evangelical non denomination, bible faith group, called Pleasant Gove Church of God. While I was happy there, through scripture I knew God established One True covenant institution. Long story short I came into that Church.

Thanks for sharing. In my time with Pentecostals , half their members came out of the Catholic church, vice versa from you. Interesting that when one has Christ he may seek an institution ( as you), while others who have the "institution’’(Catholics) seek and find a Christ elsewhere. Many of the reformers were heavily bedded in the Catholic institution but found that by itself was not effectual to true , new spiritual life In Christ. (A la Nicodemus)

I am glad to see you posted, “Salvation is of the Jews” and Judaism was indeed the One and True covenant, institution of the time." At lest you recognize there was only One True covenant institution or Vineyard, OT. And that holds true in our time, there is still only One and True covenant institution or Vineyard, NT. Identifiable historically and scripturally as the Catholic Church.

Beautiful, except you sectarianize the whole thing, for you really mean it is the Roman Catholic Church.

You missed the lesson from the old dispensation/covenant. Your making Roman Catholics the only true ones is like the Essenes saying they were the only true covenant carriers , or the Pharisees (pick any one of the sects). Jesus saw the forest thru the trees and said it is “Judaism”. Just as today it is “Christianity” . Ecclesia are the called out ones. We are a body, even a bride, being called out to a “wedding”.

Jesus is building His church, via the Catholic, and Orthodox, and P churches. Why not, if He can use a donkey (jack—) for guidance, or twelve rascally, even scoundrel brothers or the good, bad, and ugly of twelve apostles. It all fits for me brother.(the bible says they formed our 24 foundations).

I also (even in the flesh) love perfection, and boxiness, and every thing nice and fit, and that is why we look forward to heaven. An institution can never fill that void on this side of heaven, but is a nice down payment of things to come.

 

[benhur]

Judaism had a teaching authority, in union with the High Priest, that could bind and loose as they sat in Moses’ seat Mt23:1-7. Christ sent a teaching authority, to teach till the end of the world, Mt28:16-20, which could bind and loose, in union with the holder of the keys, the Chair of Peter Mt16:15-19 & M18:18. The difference is the Jewish authority was not promised and given the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, as the NT One True covenant institution [Vineyard] was Jn16:12-13. See Lk20:9-19 Christ telling the Jewish leaders there will be a change of leaders in the Vineyard.

Good. Keep going, for the other change is that now every man will have the law written in his heart, and will have no need for his neighbor to teach him , for all are now finally priests, all have the same indwelling of the Holy Ghost. All can now go into the Holy of Holies, the middle wall of partition being rent in two. That is to be a reality , as much as the effect of sin upon that promise. The gifts of God are without repentance.

Paul even checked his teaching with that One True Covenant Vineyard to make sure he had not or was not running in vain.

After how many years ? Yes, much is made of this. It is in the eyes of the beholder.The same thing that melts wax hardens clay. We have the same evidences , and yet come away with different understanding.

" Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.]"

Paul was quite sure of his gospel and of his ministry. What was challenging it was the Judaizers. They could have deflated much of the work , made it vain, hence the matter needed settling. The Spirits wisdom led things to go the heart of the matter- Jerusalem , and to a key holder(Peter) , for God had also revealed to him the attitude non respecter of persons towards gentiles.

I certainly didn’t post, one error disqualifies all truthful grounding. Not to be smart, but how many errors or false doctrines would you prescribe to? If there is one false doctrine how can you be sure there are not more, how would you determine, with certitude, which are false and which are true?

So would one error disqualify? You say no, but certainly put forth the need and comfort and rationale of zero error.

To me God’s grace, and power, and love are shown thru the differences, which we are to exemplify also to one another.

Not to be flippant Ben, but I would view that as reducing infallibility and the Church to political correctness.

Well it was certainly political correctness that condemned Lutheranism. Was it political correctness for the Bereans (even Luther) , to ask for scriptural rationale ?( PS-O’s and P’s also have had there bad in PC )

Would you adjust your understanding, of just what is infallible, and just what is the Church, to a church teaching the following contradicting teachings?

Yes, already have

If not then how or who would decide which is true or false?

You are right, quite a challenge. Guess I must needs trust in the Shepherd and indeed work out my salvation and fear and trembling, and really, really seek, and have my lamp oil filled . To God be the glory , no “comfort” box for me, and others.

We all decide what is true and false, just as you once chose ‘this’ and now it is’ that’. Everyone is before the Lord in his decision. No one escapes the responsibility. Especially since He does not deny any who call out to Him.

Bible alone community interpretation/bible alone individual interpretation, bible interprets self/bible doesn’t interpret self. Bible alone/bible and Tradition. OSAS/can lose salvation. OSAS if sin never saved/OSAS if murder still saved. Baptism washes away sin/baptism does not wash away sin. Believer’s baptism only/infant baptism. Baptize in the name of Jesus/baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptism symbolic/baptism not symbolic, Baptism necessary/Baptism not necessary, Born again the instant believe/Born again by water & the Spirit baptized, etc…

Makes me feel right at home, as a son of Abraham. And just like Christ shone brightly in that old "messy’’ dispensation, He does so in ours, the good, bad and ugly of it.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

You certainly do need to “adjust” your understanding by listening to Christ Himself, something you have failed to do, consistently, resulting in being stuck in a sectarian rut.

The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

**Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

So only the Catholic Church founded by Christ Himself holds and offers the fullness of His Truth and can teach infallibly on faith and on morals.

Hi Abu,

Would I be wrong to please ask that you write what you mean when you say “Church”? Otherwise we see our own definition of church in their. I think you mean Catholic Church= Roman Catholic Church, and not Orthodox Catholic or Catholic Protestant.

Yes I am "sectarian’’. I am an American , but also Conservative/Republican, as I am Christian but Protestant. How about you ?

Blessings.
Blessings.