Love that story, ben! It’s a testament to the power of friendship. No door-to-door evangelizer could have offered your Baptist friend a look at the deuterocanon and achieved success like you could.
The first article you gave went over what tradition means to Roman Catholics and then made assertions that this tradition is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. The second was a complete misrepresentation of private judgment. Those are not answers, nor evidence. I already know the assertions. They are assertions that any other church body that claims to be the one and only makes.
I did.
Taking it to the church is fine. It properly describes church discipline. What i reject is “take it to the church” actually means “take it to the magisterium.”
A congregation of Christians.
Because only a church can exercise church discipline.
PRmerger;10625373 said:
Really? It has one of my favorite night time prayers for my husband and me:
Actually trusting in scripture should involve an accurate understanding of scripture. When you claim that sola scriptura is taught by authors who could not have taught it, then that should call into question weather you really trust them.
I tend to think “The interpretation problem” has to do with the fact that so many people mis-interpret scripture.
That is humble and beautiful prayer. Thanks for sharing that - I’ll make my way though Tobit now!
I don’t disagree with that. It is not my argument that tradition does not exist. But that what is taught by Rome that we dispute is not apostolic teaching.
Evidence of what? Where has Rome disregarded faith and morals as has been handed down?
And the question is…who determines what is apostolic teaching? You? According to your interpetation?
Your loving him back…and carrying your cross.
The problem with the scenario is that Paul wouldn’t have thought of it that way, since what we now know as the NT was in development at his time - he was writing it, in part. So, oral Tradition, and oral spreading of the faith, was part and parcel of his time, and he wouldn’t have spoken of it in that way. The apostles were around. He met with Peter and the others, knew them. So, it isn’t the same as it was after the close of the apostolic era.
Is the magisterium not part of the Church? How will church discipline, teaching be made known to the laity?
Consider: if this is the standard, then the Trinity must be questioned once again. The very nature of the Godhead, as witnessed by the several hundred years long Arian heresy, occurred shortly after the Apostolic period ended. The Apostles did not have to confront Arian thinking and so did not mention such in their writing. Arius used the exact same “authoritative” scriptures as the Trinitarians. Was he right? Who is to say?
Such as…?
Does not matter what finite creature believes he or she should grant. Fact of the matter is Jesus founded His church and gave her full authority. Jesus never says anything about a democracy or democratic church. And if any Lutheran says the Lutheran church is from the beginning is gullible enough to believe such a historical error.
Sorry…but I don’t equivocate the doctrine of the Trinity with Mary’s assumption, purgatory or papal infallibility.
We understand that Protestants take that position so it is their prerogative. But in this argument, you are actually cherry picking. The doctrines of the Trinity, Mary’s assumption, purgatory or papal infallibility are not explicitly stated in the Bible but yet implicitly implied. It is just a matter of interpretation. If one can apply the doctrine of Trinity as Biblically based, so are Mary’s assumption, purgatory or papal infallibility. The reason why Protestants do not accept the latter is (simply) because they are not Catholics (!) not because they are difficult to support Biblically.
I am not cherry picking, Reuben. I am saying that the evidence in history and Scripture for the doctrine of the Trinity is not in any way comparable to the aforementioned teachings. The doctrine of the Trinity is not “implied.”