Sola Scriptura family problem

[tequilamac]

[Originally Posted by mikeledes
If we are not to go beyond what is written, then masturbation, abortion, and cloning should be allowed because there is no passage in the Bible that explictly deal with these issues.
[COLOR=“green”]In regards to masturbation that violates the lust principle in Matthew 5:28; abortion violates the command not to murder; cloning, i’m not sure at this point. I need to study this further.

I know I’ve uses this example before, but when is a person actually married before God? Is it when they exchange vows before a designated authority? Is it when they consumate their union?
I would say when you say your vows. What do you think?

Does a marriage have to be witnessed by anyone? Please point to the passages in the Bible that specifically address these questions.

I’m not aware of any and i don’t think it really matters. That’s why i believe when you make a vow before God, you better keep it. See Ecclesiastes 5:4

Don’t spend too much time looking, because you won’t find any passages that specifically address these questions. What will we do if we are not supposed to go beyond what is written?
This is why we need to have the "words of Christ richly dwell in us" As we grow in our understanding of scripture the greater our ability to discern God’s will. Psalm 119 is a great place to look at how the Word can help us.

God Bless,
Michael

You forgot about embryonic stem cell research. There is nothing in the Bible on this either.

Doing this would violate the commandment not to murder

Therefore sola scripturists would have us make no moral decision on this issue either. In fact, when you get right down to it, sola scripturists would give science a free hand in life and death.

Huh? Why do you say this? I adhere to sola scriptura but i don’t agree with your assement here. In fact there are many protestants that are deeply involved in matters of life and death issue. I know for me, the scripture helps to guide me on these matters.

Where does scripture say that cloning, masturbation, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion violate the commandments you listed? It doesn’t, does it. It does not state that one shall not commit embryonic stem cell research as it violates the commandment thou shalt not kill. You have arrived at your “doctrine” that it is wrong through your own interpretation of the Bible and using common sense, yet you deny the Catholic Church has the right to develop the same doctrine because as you say it is not in scripture. Well, either is yours. I do not understand why you get to do it and the Catholic Church does not. Where is your authority that is more infallible than the Church’s authority to develop the doctrine that cloning is wrong? Furthermore, not all non catholic churces agree that these things are wrong. We have the Church which sets the standards for all Catholics whether they adhere to them or not. But for you sola scripturists, it is entirely dependent on which personal doctrine you decide to develop and which personally developed doctrine you reject. A most inconsistent approach.

 

[petra]

Since the assumption of Mary and indulgences are not in scripture there must have been a time when there was no “offical teaching” on this. How do you comapre a teaching if there is no scriptural grounds or offical teaching in which to compare it with?

The answer to your question lies in a comparison between the epistemologies of sola scriptura Protestants and of Catholics.

Do you have an infallible definition of Tradition by your church?

This question doesn’t really make sense. Doctrine and moral teachings are infallible. As far as I know, the Church doesn’t attempt to define terms infallibly.

What sacred scripture do you have that is not in the Scripture? Can you give me a couple of specific examples and show that your church defines these traditions as inspired and inerrant?

Do you mean, “What sacred tradition do you have that is not in the scripture?” A more accurate question would be, “What teachings have been preserved through Sacred Tradition that are not fully articulated in Scripture?” Examples would be the Trinity, Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary. Almost everything the Church teaches is at least alluded to in scripture and nothing contradicts it.

Having an infallible church is not required to discern what the scriptures were. To discover that truth of a matter does not require infalliblity. It does not logically follow that my rejection of your church’ infalliblity leads me to reject the Bible. The Bible is inerrant and inspired not because your church proclaims it so but is based on the very nature of the Scripture itself.

So why were early Christians so confused about what was canonical if it was so obvious to the average person? What it is about the “nature of Scripture” that would enable you to select inspired writings from non-inspired writings?

 

[petra]

Justasking4,

I’m curious to know how you know the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

1. What evidence do you have of its inspiration?
2. How do you know that the books that were selected were correct and that none were erroneously omitted?
3. Why do you trust the infallbility of the Bible rather than scriptures of other religions?

petra

 

[justasking4]

Justasking4,

I’m curious to know how you know the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

1. What evidence do you have of its inspiration?
   Briefly those arguments that argue for it i think are quite compelling. I also find that my personal study has also helped to confirm them that they are indeed inspired.
2. How do you know that the books that were selected were correct and that none were erroneously omitted?
   I studied the process how this was done and i think they got it right. If God used the catholic church to help in determining this issue, so be it. However i do wonder if there might be something i.e. book-letter that was missed.
3. Why do you trust the infallbility of the Bible rather than scriptures of other religions?
   The Scriptures make a compelling case that the God Who created the universe became a man and this Man put His approval on OT scriptures and guided the making of the NT. There may be some truth in other religions but if the NT is right about Christ, then were on extremely solid grounds. That would put all other “scriptures” of other religions in a second class status.

petra

 

[petra]

1. What evidence do you have of its inspiration?

Briefly those arguments that argue for it i think are quite compelling. I also find that my personal study has also helped to confirm them that they are indeed inspired.

And those would be?

2. How do you know that the books that were selected were correct and that none were erroneously omitted?

I studied the process how this was done and i think they got it right. If God used the catholic church to help in determining this issue, so be it. However i do wonder if there might be something i.e. book-letter that was missed.

What process? The Catholic Church’s process of determining canonicity? What process do you suppose the CC used?

3. Why do you trust the infallbility of the Bible rather than scriptures of other religions?

The Scriptures make a compelling case that the God Who created the universe became a man and this Man put His approval on OT scriptures and guided the making of the NT. There may be some truth in other religions but if the NT is right about Christ, then were on extremely solid grounds. That would put all other “scriptures” of other religions in a second class status.

You are using circular reasoning here. You say the scriptures make a compelling case about who God is and what He did and therefore the scriptures are infallible, but you presuppose that the information that builds this compelling case is true. A compelling case is only as good as the truth of the facts upon which it is built.

You do qualify your next to last statement with “if the NT is right about Christ.” So without presupposing the Bible is infallible, how do you know it is infallible?

 

[Philthy]

Part 1
Not so. Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16 implies that his letters are equated with scripture

Equal in that their meaning is difficult and able to be distorted.

 

[Philthy]

Both of them were associated with an apostle in some manner

“associated…in some manner” What does that have to do with anything? Lots of people were “associated” with Apostles - like some of the ECFs (ie Ignatious). Why arent their letters considered Scripture? They should be by the standard that you have proposed.
Also, I think you need to go re-read the very beginning of Luke to see exactly what he was doing. He wasnt merely basing his “Gospel” on apostolic teaching, he did a personal investigation of all the writings of both non-apostolic and apostolic writers and compiled a narrative in an orderly sequence.

justasking4:

Evidently God did it some how. Writing a perfect document is not an impossible feat.

“Evidently”? Is there any evidence of this or simply oral tradition that it happened? It sounds to me like you are relying on oral tradition to make such a claim because Scripture is insufficient to make such a determination.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Justasking4;

Good morning from California and God bless you all on this thread!

1. Quit avoiding giving a direct answer to this question: What is the NT source for your claim that “It is only scriptures alone that is inspired and inerrant. No teacher, church or man is above them”?

I think a direct answer from you would be a great leap in moving forward on this (SS) issue.

1. How I read Scripture. I try to take into account the sacred authors’ intention. Similar to my undergraduate training and experience in languages and literature, I am mindful of the historical conditions, cultural conditions, the genres in use, the limitations of that language, the idiomatic expressions used. I do not this in a vacuum. I have the support of early Church Fathers (such as Sts Ambrose, Augustine and John Chrysostom, for example), translated copies of early Church documents showing the developing tradition and understanding of scriptural passages (such as the Didache). All of this in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written. I do not presume to know more than others who have committed their whole lives to understanding one Gospel or the letters of St Paul (and our Church history is replete with these individuals who have left books and handwritten manuscripts: all available in published form or via the Vatican website)

I understand that like the ancient Hebrews and their Tanakh, our Scriptures were written in more than one sense: the literal, the spiritual, the allegorical and the anagogical.

Dante Alighieri in his Commedia is the classic literary example of this approach.

1. If you constantly look for permission to do or not do something in the Bible as it pertains to the Church’s political structure, its hierarchy, or its disciplines, you will be disappointed. There is a big difference between the rosary and the Sacraments, between celibate Roman rite priests and the Eucharist.

Jesus did not address how His Church was to be designed. Quit equating structure with substance. He did not set out the rules and regulations concerning the structure or if certain administrators were to be married or not. You are confusing St Paul with Jesus on this issue. You are equating St Paul’s advice and proposals to specific churches and problems with specific congregations as applying to 21st century America. I don’t see women covering their heads in Protestant services. It’s the cafeteria approach to scriptures again. This is the inconsistency that I referred to in my prior note. You must be consistent with your belief. We can’t pick and choose, claiming certain passages have more weight than others or by saying what the writer *really *meant was this or that this is metaphorical way of saying so and so.

Priests not marrying is a Roman Rite discipline. A Rite is the sum total of the forms and ceremonies of liturgical worship and the whole expression of the theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage of particular churches and communities of churches. Byzantine Rite priests are married. Anglican use priests marry (those are former Episcopalian and Anglican priests who have converted to Catholicism). There are three whole parishes which converted in Houston, Texas. All of them have married, Catholic priests. Other Rites include Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Gallican, Alexandrian (subdivided into Coptic and Ethiopian), Antiochene, the Malankarese of India (which follows the liturgy of St James), and, the Maronites of Lebanon (the Christians of current news from that country verging on another civil war). Armenian Rite for those Catholics in Iraq, Turkey and Armenia. Chaldean Rite in Arabic.

Much of what St Paul recommended was followed by the Church as tradition, not doctrine. What Jesus taught to the Apostles and what was handed down orally and in writing is doctrine, as determined by the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Philthy]

petra:

I’m curious to know how you know the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

1. What evidence do you have of its inspiration?

justasking4:

Briefly those arguments that argue for it i think are quite compelling. I also find that my personal study has also helped to confirm them that they are indeed inspired.

If you cant see how this is simply saying, “My evidence is that I believe it” then you are simply not ready to hear the truth.

 

[Philthy]

petra:

I’m curious to know how you know the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

1. What evidence do you have of its inspiration?

justasking4:

Briefly those arguments that argue for it i think are quite compelling. I also find that my personal study has also helped to confirm them that they are indeed inspired.

If you cant see how this is simply saying, “My evidence is that I believe it” then you are simply not ready to hear the truth.

 

[Philthy]

justasking4:

Since the assumption of Mary and indulgences are not in scripture there must have been a time when there was no “offical teaching” on this.

I dont follow your logic. You seem to be ASSUMING that EVERYTHING important to the faith was recorded in Scripture - Scripture doesnt make that claim. It only claims that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

justasking4:
How do you comapre a teaching if there is no scriptural grounds or offical teaching in which to compare it with?

I would use the same “personal study” techniques that you used to arrive at the conclusion that the bible is inspired. Care to share them?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

1. **Apostolic Succession. **After the Apostles came the bishops. Remember that Jesus promised the Apostles that He would remain with them always (Matthew 28:20). So the divine mission entrusted by Jesus to them “will continue to the end of time, since the Gospel they handed on is the lasting source of all life for the Church. Therefore, the apostles took care to appoint successors.” (Lumen Gentium, 20).

Thus, (as an example) from St James to his successor (bishop) who ordains priests and deacons to his successor who does the same up to the present day, that is Apostolic Succession. Remember, the Church grew radically in those early centuries. One person could not manage or ensure the proper teaching of Jesus and the Good News to the ever increasing numbers, he had to train and teach others to ensure continuity and specificity of the message.

1. The issue is what does Christianity teach for mankind, what is God’s message to us, it is not pointing out the number of bad administrators or evil persons who have occupied positions of authority or trust in the Church’s hierarchy.

This is the scriptural equivalent of pointing out the mote in my eye! It is important to remember that at no time did any bad pope change doctrine, create doctrine or claim something other than what has been the Church’s teaching since its founding by Jesus.

If you have proof other than vague accusations then let’s see them. The bad popes were more concerned with earthly power and its perversion than with running the administration of the Church or in fulfilling their role as the Servent to the Servants of the Lord. Shame on them but thank God the Church weathered that tribulation. (as an aside: it seems whenever the hierarchy isn’t doing much, along comes a Saint like Francis of Assissi or Bernadette).

1. **Jeanne d’Arc was never condemned by the Church or excommunicated by Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447). **Pierre Caubron [the leader cleric of the Anglo-Burgundians] and the other judges were staunch supporters of conciliar authority (i.e., the power of the Councils over the Pope: shades of Protestantism!!) and were in fact denounced at Basel by Pope Eugene as “alllies of Satan” after the death of Jeanne. This was nothing but a political decision disguised as legitimate Church action. Jeanne threatened the English and their Burgundian supporters. It was national politics pure and simple. Her statements at the trial (scholars have noted emendations made after the fact) attest to her Catholic belief. No bishop ever thought her anathema. In fact, the outpouring of support from other Catholic kingdoms and clerics support recent historians views that what we Americans were taught was tainted (as was the so-called Inquisition, see the BBC special on that one) by the Anglo-Protestant slant.

As a young student I was taught in public school that the Puritans came to America for religious freedom. In college I learned how they hung people (like Quakers) who believed otherwise, or drowned people (like widowed women) as witches on the basis of 2 witnesses (as recommended in one of St Paul’s letters!). Catholics could not practice their faith openly in any colony but Maryland.

 

[mikeledes]

1. As a young student I was taught in public school that the Puritans came to America for religious freedom. In college I learned how they hung people (like Quakers) who believed otherwise, or drowned people (like widowed women) as witches on the basis of 2 witnesses (as recommended in one of St Paul’s letters!). Catholics could not practice their faith openly in any colony but Maryland.

Amen to that! Even within the first decades of the Protestant Reformation, Protestants did not hesitate in using violence against fellow Protestants with a different creed from their own:

Let me quote a passage on the persecution of Anabaptists from A History of Modern Germany: The Reformation by Hajo Holborn:

“In Zurich , where the first large congregation was formed in 1525, Anabaptists were first fined, then jailed, and after 1527 drowned”

Here is something else from wikipedia:

Zwingli’s Reformation was supported by the magistrate and population of Zürich, and led to significant changes in civil life, and state matters in Zürich. In particular, this movement was known for mercilessly persecuting Anabaptists and other followers of Christ who maintained a nonresistant stance. The reformation was spread from Zürich to five other cantons of Switzerland, while the remaining five sternly held on to the Roman Catholic view of the faith.

So much for the values of separation of Church and State and religious toleration introduced by the Protestant reformers. Here is some more on Ulrich Zwingli, one of the founding fathers of the Protestant Reformation, from Wikipedia:

In Zürich, Zwingli was now the commanding personality in all ecclesiastical and political questions. He was “mayor, secretary, and council” all in one. He and Luther could not agree regarding the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper when a disputation was arranged between the two Protestant leaders at Marburg in October, 1529.

As a statesman, Zwingli embarked in secular politics with ambitious plans.

Zwingli died fighting in a battle.

Now the Anabaptists were not free from excesses either. Take, for example, the theocracy a group of Anabaptists established in the German city of Munster, in which John of Leiden ruled as king. The following comes from Wikipedia and is on John of Leiden:

Raised a “bastard” and dogged by poverty, young John became a charismatic leader who was widely revered by his followers. According to his own testimony, he went to the German city of Münster, arriving in 1533, because he had heard there were inspired preachers there. He sent for Jan Matthys, who had baptized him, to come. After his arrival Matthys - recognized as a prophet - became the principal leader in the city. Following a failed military attempt on Easter Sunday 1534, in which Matthys died, John of Leiden became King of Münster until its fall in June of 1535. He set up a theocracy in Münster and led a communalistic and polygamous state. Some sources report that John of Leiden took sixteen wives. He publicly beheaded one of his wives after she rebelled against his authority.

Polygamy and the beheading of a wife. Wow, now that is true Christian living. Or how about Martin Luther’s Christian suggestion to the German princes on how to deal with the peasants in the Peasant’s revolt of 1525:

“Therefore must here smite, choke, and stab… whoever can be conscious that there is nothing more poisonous, obnoxious, and devilish than a revolutionary man, as one must kill a mad dog.” Wow, spoken like a true Christian restoring the Gospel of Christ to its original purity. To be continued…

 

[kage_ar]

I am not Catholic, and I wouldn’t say I am in the process of converting (although I would like to). I’m only 16 at the moment, so I live under “their rules”.

We are members of the Church of Christ (the ones that use instruments), a part of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. “No book but the Bible” is a part of their motto. I don’t agree with this, so my parents are not happy with it.

Jon - my parents and my grandparents are part of the same group, in fact, my father is an evangelist in this group and my grandfather was a minister there. I’m an adult convert to the Catholic Church - so, I can understand a bit of where you are. Please feel free to PM me…

I’d suggest you do some reading at the CA library, as the writings of the Early Church Fathers will be a great help to you.

Also, you might read “Imitation of Christ” by Thomas A Kempis and “Interior Castles” by Teresa of Avilla (the Christian Standard reccomended these books a few months ago, they are Catholic authors, and if you tell your mom and dad that the Standard reccomended them, it might help them see that Catholics are not all raving lunatics )

 

[mikeledes]

But what was this true Gospel. It seems that the Protestant reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) could not figure it out. the following is from Wikipedia:

One major difference in theological opinion between Zwingli and Luther is that of grace versus works as it relates to the Christian sacraments. Many consider Luther to have been the originator of the belief that God’s covenants to man are unconditional; Zwingli, on the other hand, proposed that God’s covenants were just that–spiritually binding contracts between God and man that were vulnerable to man’s relapse into the sinful life that could eventually lead to an annulment of God’s part in the contract.

For both Luther and Zwingli, the sacrament of baptism was a sign or symbol of God’s new Gospel covenant. Their theological differences arise in the relationship between baptism and mankind. While Luther believed that God’s grace was sufficient for man’s salvation thereby defining baptism simply as a sign of having received a divine guarantee of this grace, Zwingli taught that God’s grace in addition to man’s work was necessary for salvation thereby defining baptism as a covenant between God and man. This covenant/contract involved two parties wherein both were given specific responsibilities; if one party did not comply with said agreements, the opposite party was relinquished of all responsibilities detailed in the contract.

A key doctrinal difference between Zwingli and other sects of Protestantism was his view on the Eucharist. Whereas Luther believed that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the bread and wine of this sacrament (a view often called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans), Zwingli thought the sacrament to be purely symbolic and memorial in character. Their differences were discussed at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. By contrast, the next generation Reformer John Calvin’s view was that Christ is spiritually but not physically present in the sacrament, but some later Calvinists such as Charles Hodge tend more towards Zwingli’s memorialism than Calvin’s doctrine.

By the way, everything that I have said in this post and the one immediately before is occuring within the **first decades **of the Protestant reformation. And what do we see. Social and political disorder, religious persecution, and a diversity of Protestant sects (Lutheran, Zwinglian, Calvinist, Anabaptists) that could not agree on fundamental issues like the nature of salvation and the Lord’s supper and often persecuted each other because of these disagreements. So the Protestant reformation was a work of God, huh? What it brought was mass confusion with the introduction of Sola Scriptura. We see this confusion even in the very dawn of Protestantism and exists till this very day. Like I said earlier, God is not the author of confusion.

If Luther did the work of God by teaching Sola Scriptura and rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, then why aren’t all Protestants Lutheran? If Luther could be so wrong on issues like baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist, how are you so certain that he wasn’t wrong on Sola Scriptura and on salvation? Remember, all of Protestantism ultimately originate from his teachings.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

False teachers can arise within a church, justasking4, but this does not mean that the entire church will be led astray by their teaching. The Church as a whole is protected from falling into error. That is why jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Otherwise, how can it be the “pillar and foundation of truth.” If false doctrines prevail in the church, then the gates of hell have prevailed and jesus did not keep his promise. Protestant churches are not an alternative because they all contradict each other not only on so called “non-essentials,” but on the very nature of salvation (i.e. free will vs. predestination, eternal security vs. Arminianism, baptismal regeneration (Lutheran) vs. “Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,” Christ died specifically for our sins vs the “Health and wealth” Gospel). The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself. If GOD gave us teachers to protect us from every wind of doctrine that is the product of the craftiness of men, then how can this teaching authority as embodied by the Magisterium (Pope in union with the Bishops) not be trustworthy enough to preserve Christian teaching. The point is to protect us from false doctrine, right? If the teaching authority can’t infallibly fulfill this function, then that contradicts the whole argument of Ephesians and the point of God giving us teachers.

If Protestant churches can’t figure out amongst themselves what the Bible states, then I prefer to stick with the Church that discerned which books were inspired and belonged in the Bible and which did not, that defined the Trinity in the Council of Nicaea, and that can trace its history as an institution back to the first century A.D. And that church is the Catholic Church. A church that was not founded on the private interpretation of the Bible of an individual that lived centuries after Christ, such as the Lutherans (Martin Luther), Methodists (Wesley), Presbyterians and Reformed (John Calvin), etc.

God bless,
Michael

 

[justasking4]

Philthy:
“associated…in some manner” What does that have to do with anything?

Lots of people were “associated” with Apostles - like some of the ECFs (ie Ignatious). Why arent their letters considered Scripture?

They were not apostles. The last apostle, John, had died.
What does your church say to this question?

They should be by the standard that you have proposed.
evident not. For some reason they have not

Also, I think you need to go re-read the very beginning of Luke to see exactly what he was doing. He wasnt merely basing his “Gospel” on apostolic teaching, he did a personal investigation of all the writings of both non-apostolic and apostolic writers and compiled a narrative in an orderly sequence.

This is true. However, Luke was associated with Paul the apostle and evidently this lended credibily to his gospel being scripture.

“Evidently”? Is there any evidence of this or simply oral tradition that it happened? It sounds to me like you are relying on oral tradition to make such a claim because Scripture is insufficient to make such a determination.

In some cases we must rely on traditions if they can be shown to be reliable.

 

[justasking4]

But what was this true Gospel. It seems that the Protestant reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) could not figure it out. the following is from Wikipedia:

By the way, everything that I have said in this post and the one immediately before is occuring within the **first decades **of the Protestant reformation. And what do we see. Social and political disorder, religious persecution, and a diversity of Protestant sects (Lutheran, Zwinglian, Calvinist, Anabaptists) that could not agree on fundamental issues like the nature of salvation and the Lord’s supper and often persecuted each other because of these disagreements. So the Protestant reformation was a work of God, huh? What it brought was mass confusion with the introduction of Sola Scriptura. We see this confusion even in the very dawn of Protestantism and exists till this very day. Like I said earlier, God is not the author of confusion.
Has confusion ever existed in the catholic church?

If Luther did the work of God by teaching Sola Scriptura and rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, then why aren’t all Protestants Lutheran? If Luther could be so wrong on issues like baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist, how are you so certain that he wasn’t wrong on Sola Scriptura and on salvation? Remember, all of Protestantism ultimately originate from his teachings.

God Bless,
Michael

The short answer is that men are fallible. Certainly there a lot of differences in these churches. However, its also just as true in the catholic church. Is it not true that catholics are allowed to have different opinions on a number of different issues?
Have you ever compared doctinal statements among 10 protestant churches in your area? I think what you find is that there are not thousands and thousands differences on everything.

 

[justasking4]

False teachers can arise within a church, justasking4, but this does not mean that the entire church will be led astray by their teaching.

i agree. At times this is true. Other times not.

The Church as a whole is protected from falling into error. That is why jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
Couple of issues here. The passage in matthew is dealing with the indestuctability of the church and its not about the inability of the church to teach error.

Otherwise, how can it be the “pillar and foundation of truth.”
Was your church teaching falsely when it condemned unjustly Joan of Arc?

If false doctrines prevail in the church, then the gates of hell have prevailed and jesus did not keep his promise.

How has your church infallibly defined this verse? Do they say the issue is doctrine?

Protestant churches are not an alternative because they all contradict each other not only on so called “non-essentials,” but on the very nature of salvation (i.e. free will vs. predestination, eternal security vs. Arminianism, baptismal regeneration (Lutheran) vs. “Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,” Christ died specifically for our sins vs the “Health and wealth” Gospel). The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself. If GOD gave us teachers to protect us from every wind of doctrine that is the product of the craftiness of men, then how can this teaching authority as embodied by the Magisterium (Pope in union with the Bishops) not be trustworthy enough to preserve Christian teaching. The point is to protect us from false doctrine, right? If the teaching authority can’t infallibly fulfill this function, then that contradicts the whole argument of Ephesians and the point of God giving us teachers.
Not necessarily so. There is no passage in scripture where the church is automatically protected from teahing falsely.

If Protestant churches can’t figure out amongst themselves what the Bible states,
How do you know if you have a given verse-passage of scripture is correctly interpreted? Since as you state protestants can’t, how do catholics? Where is your infallible interpretation of the verses of the Bible?

Do you think that if a i looked at a couple of catholic study bibles would they interpret the passages of scripture exactly alike?

then I prefer to stick with the Church that discerned which books were inspired and belonged in the Bible and which did not, that defined the Trinity in the Council of Nicaea, and that can trace its history as an institution back to the first century A.D. And that church is the Catholic Church.

Do adhere-believe all that your church teaches and supports?

A church that was not founded on the private interpretation of the Bible of an individual that lived centuries after Christ, such as the Lutherans (Martin Luther), Methodists (Wesley), Presbyterians and Reformed (John Calvin), etc.

God bless,
Michael

 

[justasking4]

The answer to your question lies in a comparison between the epistemologies of sola scriptura Protestants and of Catholics.

This question doesn’t really make sense. Doctrine and moral teachings are infallible. As far as I know, the Church doesn’t attempt to define terms infallibly.
Then how do you know what they teach are true?

Do you mean, “What sacred tradition do you have that is not in the scripture?” A more accurate question would be, “What teachings have been preserved through Sacred Tradition that are not fully articulated in Scripture?” Examples would be the Trinity, Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary. Almost everything the Church teaches is at least alluded to in scripture and nothing contradicts it.

Almost anything can be “alluded” to and mean to say anything. Where is it alluded to that the NT teaches you are to pray to Mary?

So why were early Christians so confused about what was canonical if it was so obvious to the average person?

I don’t know if they were confused as such but the leadership in the 2-3rd century realised they needed to define what the canon was in light of various heritics.

What it is about the “nature of Scripture” that would enable you to select inspired writings from non-inspired writings?

I can only go on what we have today. In my study on this issue, both catholic and protestant agree. if i did not have any understanding of the scripture, i would not be able to truly tell.

How did the Jews determine what the canon of the OT was without the catholic church?