But you see, Johnny, we who rely on the Scriptures as our authority have a means by which we can identify the apostasy. I don’t think that’s possible with sola ecclesia. It can be upon them and they’d never know it. They could be a part of it and never realize it.
Christ has given the church Apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. (see Eph. 4:11-16).
Off topic.
The gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s church.
He said “…one, even as We are One.” I doubt that God the Father was a Methodist, that God the Son was a Lutheran, and that God the Holy Spirit was a Presbyterian. They were completely One; I can’t see Them/Him having doctrinal differences or disagreements within Themselves/Himself, do you?
Embryonic stem-cell research, gay marriage, life at conception, contraception, human cloning, animal cloning. All these things are not explicitly (some not even implicitly) in the Bible. How does one determine these issues. Mortal sin is on the line, here. How can these be determined from a Sola Scripturist’s view?
Moondweller, Just wondering where in the Bible it says this?
"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8) A.D. 110 . Ignatius is known and revered as an authentic witness to the traditions and practice of the apostles. I don’t know why you would have a problem with the teachings of a man who is known to have been tought by 3 of the the Apostles. Unless you believe that your teachings better reflects the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles than his does. Is that what you believe?
You use the Bible to prove the infallibility of the same? That is circulus in probando.
Moondweller, If you were a Sola Scriptura Christian living in the period between 140 A.D.-200 A.D. and even as late as around the 400’s, You might very well have had to say that the scripture clearly show that there are 2 distinct Gods; because the only New testament scriptures you may have had to rely upon was the New testament produced by Marcion a business man ; and not a member of the hierarchy of the Church.( It was the 1st New Testament produced! ) On the other hand the list of books that you call the New Testament was first compiled in 367 A.D.; And was 1st approved for use throughout most of the Church in A.D.397 where The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sent it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. However In the East, the canonical process (The process of discerning which books belong in the Bible) was hampered by a number of schisms. **Here is a problem for those who don’t want ‘to listen to the opinions of fallible men.’ ** **Every time they quote a scripture passage they are staking their salvation on the infallibility of the Catholic Church to have put the right books in the Bible. The infallible canon of Scripture on which they rely. **
how so? if there are disagreements on essential issues, then there is dis-order, dis-unity, dis-harmony, and chaos.
I doubt that God the Father is a “Catholic” and God the Son is “Orthodox,” either.
Certainly not. But when in the history of the church was it ever completely free from doctrinal differences?
Well, this gets into an whole other issue concerning the Catholic doctrine of “mortal sin” and the loss of one’s salvation. Thus your concern for an “infallible” authority to identify which modern day sins are “mortal.” But suffice it to say that the Bible need not list ALL the unrighteous acts of men throughout the age for us to determine what is sinful. It may take some research (who knew about embryonic stem-cells?) But, ultimately, the Bible (N.T.) isn’t about sin, but faith and salvation.
Says what, specifically?
I know nothing of Marcion’s “New Testament.” Have you seen and read it? Are you saying his “New Testament” taught that there were 2 distinct Gods? Mine doesn’t.
You overlook the fact that ALL the Books that comprise the New Testament were written before the death of the last Apostle. They were also copied, distributed and read among the churches, even at the time of the Apostles. They were recognized by the churches as divinely inspired long before the Council of Carthage.
Your first problem is your definition of “catholic church” (confining it to the church of Rome), and the second is claiming that there were no recognized, inspired Scriptures in existence before the Council of Carthage. Doesn’t make sense when the earliest CFs quoted from them extensively. And even referred to them as Scripture.
So do you also discredit Christ where it says that He began with Moses and with all the prophets explained the things concerning Himself “in all the Scriptures?” Up to that time there was no Jewish council to determine their canon of Scripture. Yet the Jews knew which Books were inspired. Was Jesus possibly in error? Did they respond, “we don’t know what you’re talking about?” In Lk. 24:45 He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. What Scriptures? Their Scriptures didn’t list the Books either. Still, He opened their minds to understand them that they might comprehend all that was written concerning Him. Go figure.
No, They’re all Three “Catholic”
. It was free on undefined differences, and this was permitted. After a doctrine’s over (Such as when Peter [The first Bishop of Rome] decided the controversy in the Jerusalem Council in Acts) Case closed! If you’re a Catholic and disagree then you’re in rebellion against the Church.Catholics have always taught this, provided it is dynamic, active Faith, and not easy-believism faith. The works are not the cause of Salvation, just the necessary evidence of the Faith, which in turn causes it. Catholicism has always taught this.
Yes, we agree on this fully.
Still, this doesn’t answer the question: How does one (As a Sola Scripturist) determine these issues?
I agree
It boggles my mind that you keep insisting that there was complete harmony in the church throughout its history. How do you account for most of the Bishops embracing Arianism before Nicea and after? Was there harmony in the church at Corinth? How is it that the church in the region of Galatia embraced "another Gospel? Was it because they had no bishops?
Some thought the Book of Enoch was inspired, and others thought Esdras I and II were also. Go figure.
His is easy to explain. He’s talking about apostolic-institutional unity. They were disagreeing within the institution of the Church, but they weren’t all fractured little churches *outside of * each other, as in Protestantism.
So then one is not saved until one can “prove” he has “dynamic faith” evidenced by works, which are the “necessary” evidence to cause salvation. And this “dynamic faith” must be evidenced continuously by works throughout one’s life in order to be saved at the end of it. No need to respond, just thinking out loud. It’s off topic anyway.
The same way your Magesterium would. As one gains understanding of the Scriptures he grows in wisdom, having been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. It’s a process in a believer’s life taught by Peter (see 2 Pet. 1:1-9)
I absolutely disagree the disgreements are on non-essentials.
Actually there were several different Jewish canons which devout Jews disagreed upon at the time of Jesus. The Pharaesic (Palestinian) canon, the Septuagint canon (about which 86% of NT quotes from the OT - 300 of 350 - are taken), the Qumran canon which we learned about from the Dead Sea scrolls and the Samaritan canon.