Nobody said he was. And that isn’t the question. We were talking about the definition of sola scriptura is. I do believe the Pope, on a lot of things. He is a great Christian leader.
On what could you possibly believe the Pope that is of any importance? (I’m genuinely curious.) The only thing we are mandated to believe in is
ex cathedra teaching, of which there hasn’t been one in decades. Even Catholics mustn’t buy into certain papal teachings (though things that are explicitly tied to doctrine or dogma or very highly recommended, and most Catholics will commit to).
Also, we’ve explained why Luther isn’t equivalent to the Pope, as the Pope has explicit historical backing . . . and Luther came out of nowhere. He did, even if you find his Confessions valid (whether they are isn’t relevant to Luther’s question of divine inspiration or right to teach).
No better option. We have the Apostles, too.
(1) Until a certain point.
(2) Selectively.
You’ve cited both of those as true before . . . as well as, I believe, that the existence of a schism (which isn’t the same thing as a heretical split, which Luther’s was) creates an inability for you to determine that Catholicism is true, which passer has already explained as an invalid argument.
Also, a question of passer’s that you haven’t answered – and I’m curious to hear the answer to – is the process by which someone comes to Lutheranism.
You know Christ is real.
Then what? Where do you go? We’ve explained that we turn to the apostles and the unbroken apostolic succession, tradition, and history. Everything is explained. Everything is embedded, has Scriptural foundation, etc.
So you tell us: How does someone who is coming from, for fun, let’s say, an atheistic or agnostic position go from Christ → a certain period of apostolic teaching → Lutheranism? Let’s say also that this supposed person has never heard of Luther.
Are you telling us that a person with no backdrop in Christianity, who is attempting to learn rationally and assign some kind of logic to his newfound faith in Christ, would logically label the Confessions as Truth?
That, if I understand correctly, is from where passer’s argument stems: There is absolutely no rational grounds on which to jump from the first X amount of centuries of apostolic teachings to Luther’s particular Confessions, whether or not this supposed person knows him or the confessions under that name. The same goes for
every single Protestant denomination. The schism exists on a different level, as it wasn’t heretical, and though the schism’s history reflects poorly on both the Roman papacy at the time and the patriarchs’ who chose to reject the Roman papacy’s infallibility (on no grounds at all, though that’s a different topic entirely), the Orthodox churches maintain a 99.9% similar identity in terms of capital-T Traditions (Eucharist, perpetual virginity, etc., etc.).
Only Catholics have a history that is identified with the apostles from the moment of the Resurrection to today. It’s the only faith by which you can rationally come to from outside the system, without assuming a particular exegetical end, whether that’s sola scriptura as most Protestants understand it or your/Luther’s interpretation.
That’s the only thing that I’d like to see from you – that explanation, as asked for above.
God bless!
