Some clarifications on Sola Scriptura

[adf417]

The Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage were regional councils - councils composed of a body of local bishops whose authority naturally was only within their own geographic areas.

Correct, which is the reason they would have sent findings to ROME for approval. Nowhere else.

Can you point me to a pre-Trent council where the RCC authoritatively declared the canon in its present form?

I cannot because “authoritatively” would probably mean something different to you than it does me.

The claims that the 382 Council of Rome declared this canon seem to have been disproven and disregarded by the academic community. Certainly, if a quote from Augustine was in the declaration, it must come from a later date than that claimed.

Now why would the “academic community” need to declare anything of what this council deemed? Who would care if it has no authority?

No, because this is off-topic. My point is to explain what the Protestant position on Sola Scriptura is. It is enough for our purposes to say that Protestants believe the 66 book canon was accepted in the early church, and in this sense appeal to ancient practice just as the RCC does.

OK! Seems fare to me. Go ahead and continue asking questions and making points about sola scripture while disregarding that large, chartreuse, neon elephant -scripture. :hypno:

I’m a bit confused. I thought you had said earlier that the canon was officially closed at the 382 Council of Rome?

If I did I sure did not mean to. It was not officially closed till Trent. That does not mean the canon ever changed. It does, however, show the position of not making an official declaration on things until the need arises. Had it not been for the Reformation, the canon may still be officially/un-officially open.

No, I did not say Carthage, Hippo etc were not ecumenical councils on the grounds that Protestants do not accept them. That would be a silly argument to use when debating a Catholic.

I said that Carthage, Hippo etc only ever claimed to be regional councils - a collection of local bishops who speak only for their jurisdiction, and not universally for the RCC.

Again, this is why it is important to note that the council findings were sent to Rome for approval.

The first to speak universally for the RCC on the establishment of the present canon seems to have been Trent.

And the first to speak universally for the RCC, and all of Christianity, on the Trinity was to have been Nicaea in 325. Does not make the Trinity an invention from that council - even though that council was an ecumenical council.

Peace!!!

 

[spina1953]

The RCC teaches Scripture as being inspired. That means God guided them to write what they wrote.

Yes, I understand that and that is true. What I am saying is that the writers themselves did not know that or thought that they were being inspired. They did not write for that reason. Their reason was more a annex to their oral teachings and preaching.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, I understand that and that is true. What I am saying is that the writers themselves did not know that or thought that they were being inspired. They did not write for that reason. Their reason was more a annex to their oral teachings and preaching.

This is an assumption, which is ok for an assumption. However, I would argue from what (at the very least) Paul said in writing, Peter said in writing, and John said in writing that they did indeed know. Peter was already calling Paul’s writing scripture during the earliest years of the church. Add that to the fact that all of the Apostles were Jewish and steeped in scripture, and Jesus’ own example of the written word as a support and evidence for what is taught; in short, it all lines up if it is accurate, both spoken and written word. Neither you nor I disagree with that, what we disagree with is that the RCC teaches that they have never taught anything that contradicts scripture, the rest of Christendom disagrees. The earliest church fathers constantly mentioned scripture and held it in the highest esteem when teaching, pointing at scripture the way Jesus did.

 

[guanophore]

I think you’ve summed up well. In short, I see no promise in scripture that the church could not get it wrong.

How can Jesus promise to lead the Church into “all Truth” and still allow them to “get it wrong”? Teaching error will cause souls to pass through the gates of hell.

If the HS sent by Christ is to impart everything of His to the Church, how can this be wrong? I marvel that you do not see these promises in Scripture.

It is the divine elements of the faith that keep the Church from error, not the human. Jesus identified Himself fully with His Church.

Paul said he could be wrong in teaching on faith and morals, unless someone sees that as hyperbole.

Perhaps you could cite a reference?

God’s power can never be thwarted by man, but God gives free will. So, we have people directly taught by Apostles abandoning the faith even whilst the Apostles were alive. Jesus asked if He would find faith on the earth when He returned, why would He need to ask that if He guaranteed it?

But you are talking about two different things here. These statements are about individuals, not His Holy Bride. The promises were made to the Church. Individuals can only benefit from the promises to the extent that they remain in unity with Her, and her Head. Since the Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit, there cannot be error in her - only in the fallible humans who are attached to her.

The Apostles gave warning after warning about the danger of false teaching; why did they never say just to hearken to the successor of Peter and you'd never go wrong on doctrine?

All of the writings that refer to this say the same thing. Unity of doctrine and unity with the Apostles, and those appointed by them. The early fathers bear this out, referencing the unity with the Bishops. They did say it, ,but just like Jesus’ promises to the Church, you cannot “see” them.

Part of the truth that we all recognize is that God wanted certain things written down,

Yes, we do. But those of Apostolic faiths realize that the writings were never to be separated from the faith that produced them. This happened in the early centuries, causing a plethora of heresies. Later, during the Reformation, ,it happened again. Now we have irreconcilable fractures in the Body as a result.

As I said, I do think you’ve summed it up well. The difference between us is that the RCC teaches that Scripture is inerrant, but also the church was promised inerrancy in certain instances as well, in perpetuity. From the dire warnings I see in scripture, I just don’t see that taught.

I think you have confused personal errors with the promises made to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

The Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage were regional councils - councils composed of a body of local bishops whose authority naturally was only within their own geographic areas.

Can you point me to a pre-Trent council where the RCC authoritatively declared the canon in its present form?

The claims that the 382 Council of Rome declared this canon seem to have been disproven and disregarded by the academic community. Certainly, if a quote from Augustine was in the declaration, it must come from a later date than that claimed.

The Church does not declare dogma until heresies make it necessary. There were no bibles before the Reformation that did not contain the books. The Council of Rome in 382 declared the Greek Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) to be Scripture. At this same council they declared the 27 books of the New Testament that we have to be Scripture.The Orthodox Church uses the Deuterocanon and they were separated from the Catholic Church a few hundred years before the Council of Trent in 1546. The Gutenberg Bible, which was printed in the 1450’s, contained the Deuterocanon. I also point to the evidence that the early Christian church used the Greek Septuagint as their scriptures. The Apostles and Christ quoted from the Septuagint. So did many Church fathers.

I’m a bit confused. I thought you had said earlier that the canon was officially closed at the 382 Council of Rome?

Certainly there was a clear statement made by the Council on what constituted inspired Scriptures. This was not sufficient, so a Dogma was proclaimed at Trent.

No, I did not say Carthage, Hippo etc were not ecumenical councils.  But these two councils demonstrate that the same 27 books of the NT, together with the Septuagint, were considered canonical.

Despite the individual opinions of scholars and theologians, they all deferred to the Church for the ruling.
Covenanter;12430583:

I said that Carthage, Hippo etc only ever claimed to be regional councils - a collection of local bishops who speak only for their jurisdiction, and not universally for the RCC.

Yes. It is what they are speaking that is universal.

The first to speak universally for the RCC on the establishment of the present canon seems to have been Trent.

I guess if you ignore all the other councils, which is why they made another statement at Trent. Nothing changed, just like when the word “Trinity” was adopted. It was not as if people lacked faith in the three in one God prior to that.

 

[guanophore]

The RCC teaches Scripture as being inspired. That means God guided them to write what they wrote.

Indeed yes. But there was never any attempt to make the writings a complete compendium of the faith, or some kind of recipe book. When they wrote, they had no way of knowing that we would end up with a 27 book NT. Writing the faith did not nullify the Word of God that was planted in the Church.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Kliska do you think Christianity could survive without the bible?

 

[Kliska]

How can Jesus promise to lead the Church into “all Truth” and still allow them to “get it wrong”? Teaching error will cause souls to pass through the gates of hell.

Lead and guide is not to force; God leads and guides to truth, and it is up to us to continue to believe and act in truth. Again, Jesus asks if He shall find faith in the Earth when He returns. And you have warning after warning about false teachers. Neither of these would be necessary if the RCC was right in it’s interpretation of these verses.

If the HS sent by Christ is to impart everything of His to the Church, how can this be wrong? I marvel that you do not see these promises in Scripture.

The Holy Spirit is never wrong, man, however is a different matter.

It is the divine elements of the faith that keep the Church from error, not the human. Jesus identified Himself fully with His Church.

Yet we see sin in the church, we see Jesus in Revelation talking about the issues in the churches that can result in Him removing the Lamp Stand. Church is all the out-called ones. Once more, Paul, Peter, and the other writers of the NT never say that if they listen to one person in particular everything will be ok, instead they speak of holding fast to a truth, not to the office of a human.

Perhaps you could cite a reference?

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 **But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed ! **9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed !

It is the gospel message that is the benchmark, not an office of teacher or Apostle. Paul even say if he starts preaching a different gospel, let him be damned. He didn’t say; all of us Apostles are always right on with the gospel so make sure you always do and believe what we say and teach. Instead he says, here is the gospel, all messages must line up with that, and even if I start saying something else, don’t believe me. So either it is truth, or it is hyperbole that Paul could preach error.

But you are talking about two different things here. These statements are about individuals, not His Holy Bride. The promises were made to the Church. Individuals can only benefit from the promises to the extent that they remain in unity with Her, and her Head. Since the Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit, there cannot be error in her - only in the fallible humans who are attached to her.

Church is individuals come together.

All of the writings that refer to this say the same thing. Unity of doctrine and unity with the Apostles, and those appointed by them. The early fathers bear this out, referencing the unity with the Bishops. They did say it, ,but just like Jesus’ promises to the Church, you cannot “see” them.

Again Paul was clear that it is the message that is the norming factor, not a person or office.

Yes, we do. But those of Apostolic faiths realize that the writings were never to be separated from the faith that produced them. This happened in the early centuries, causing a plethora of heresies. Later, during the Reformation, ,it happened again. Now we have irreconcilable fractures in the Body as a result.

If the Catholic church is one lung and the Orthodox the other lung… what of the rest of the body? I don’t think we are nearly as fractured as the RCC believes. If I have Christ as my head, and you have Christ as your head… well, we are indeed part of the same body. I think recent Popes are starting to understand this. More protestants are starting to understand this. Unity is recognizing Jesus for Who He is, and unity is shown in Love.

I think you have confused personal errors with the promises made to the Church.

I realize that is what people from your pov believe, we just disagree.

Writing the faith did not nullify the Word of God that was planted in the Church.

Writing the faith absolutely did not nullify the gospel. It did give a written account, and that account is far easier to double check, just like in a game of telephone. If I start the telephone game and write down the word that I’m sending around, when the word gets to the end of the line, I can double check it with what is written. God favored this method, as we see it in the Old and New Testament.

Have you ever played the telephone game with someone determined to change the word? If they get the next person in line to repeat the wrong word, the wrong word perpetuates. The RCC view is that God won’t ever let a person in the line change the word to be passed on, I don’t see that in scripture. I see warning after warning that contradicts that view.

 

[pablope]

Writing the faith absolutely did not nullify the gospel. It did give a written account, and that account is far easier to double check, just like in a game of telephone. If I start the telephone game and write down the word that I’m sending around, when the word gets to the end of the line, I can double check it with what is written. God favored this method, as we see it in the Old and New Testament.

Have you ever played the telephone game with someone determined to change the word? If they get the next person in line to repeat the wrong word, the wrong word perpetuates. The RCC view is that God won’t ever let a person in the line change the word to be passed on, I don’t see that in scripture. I see warning after warning that contradicts that view.

But then, you view your checking with your point of view of your "protestant tradition’…correct?

How does Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology. (calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/)

So let me ask, do you think the Real Presence is testified to by the New Testament and 2000 years of Tradition by both east and west?

And let us say on the Virgin Mary, do you not see her sinlessness and perpetual virginity, using 2000 year of tradition by both east and west?

 

[Kliska]

But then, you view your checking with your point of view of your "protestant tradition’…correct?

Can you reword this, you lost me.

So let me ask, do you think the Real Presence is testified to by the New Testament and 2000 years of Tradition by both east and west?

I don’t believe in Transubstantiation, my belief tends more toward the “Holy Mystery” way of looking at the “sacraments” or even the Lutheran way. In short, I don’t see Jesus using Aristotelian philosophy to explain the meaning and result. I’m still unclear if I can embrace another approach to the Eucharist that is not defined rigidly as “transubstantiation” and still be inline with what the RCC teaches.

And let us say on the Virgin Mary, do you not see her sinlessness and perpetual virginity, using 2000 year of tradition by both east and west?

I see and profess Jesus’ sinlessness, His divinity, His humanity, His role in the Trinity, His perfect life, death/sacrifice, and His bodily resurrection, and His someday return. I testify that His perfect fulfillment of the law includes perfectly honoring both His mother, Mary, His earthly step-dad, Joseph, and God the Father. He is a Person of the Triune God composed of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I don’t believe I have to be saved under the name “Mary” by professing certain things about her directly, but rather to testify those things about Jesus that are implied by the Marian dogmas. I join my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters in declaring Mary blessed indeed. That’s the confusing thing; I hold the exact same views of Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit as my Catholic brothers and sisters, but that profession is not enough to be allowed into the Catholic Church. Now, I must profess things about Mary, whom I love and respect.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t believe in Transubstantiation, my belief tends more toward the “Holy Mystery” way of looking at the “sacraments” or even the Lutheran way. In short,** I don’t see Jesus using Aristotelian philosophy to explain the meaning and result.**

Certainly not.

 I'm still unclear if I can embrace another approach to the Eucharist that is not defined rigidly as "transubstantiation" and still be inline with what the RCC teaches.

Yes.

I see and profess Jesus’ sinlessness, His divinity, His humanity, His role in the Trinity, His perfect life, death/sacrifice, and His bodily resurrection, and His someday return. I testify that His perfect fulfillment of the law includes perfectly honoring both His mother, Mary, His earthly step-dad, Joseph, and God the Father. He is a Person of the Triune God composed of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I don’t believe I have to be saved under the name “Mary” by professing certain things about her directly, but rather to testify those things about Jesus that are implied by the Marian dogmas. I join my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters in declaring Mary blessed indeed. That’s the confusing thing; I hold the exact same views of Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit as my Catholic brothers and sisters, but that profession is not enough to be allowed into the Catholic Church. Now, I must profess things about Mary, whom I love and respect.

We are not saved apart from Mary either, as she is intricately woven into the story of salvation. Of course your profession is “enough”. When people join the Church, they make a very basic profession of faith. We all grow in the faith, and you already have a more Catholic faith than many of those who have been baptized already.

Here is a summary.

 

[guanophore]

Lead and guide is not to force; God leads and guides to truth, and it is up to us to continue to believe and act in truth.

This is true, the truth can be presented, and people will reject it, but Truth stands firm and unwavering. What you are suggesting is that Jesus would allow His Church to fall into error by failing to keep His promise to guide her into “all Truth”. The promise was made to the Church, not to individual Christians.

The Apostles understood the faith to be One, and all those who did not embrace it in it’s fullness were heretics or apostates. The Apostles passed on this authorative stance to their successors, the Bishops, whose duty it is to maintain and teach the doctrines of hte faith:

" Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15

"I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority. "3 John 9–10

" As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine" 1 Timothy 1:3–4

“Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrews 13:17–18

I agree that the leadership of Christ is not forceful, but it does carry the force of authority. These NT passages make it clear that leadership should be exercised with that force of authority. Then, people have a choice to accept or reject what God has appointed.

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Romans 13:1–8

Members of the flock of God owe allegiance to the authorities (shepherds) that God has appointed over them. And there is no provision for the authorities acting badly.

Again, Jesus asks if He shall find faith in the Earth when He returns.  And you have warning after warning about false teachers.

An individual’s faith is their own responsibility. The doctrines of the faith are the responsibility of the teaching authority appointed by Christ.

Those who teach falsely have departed from the One Faith, and will be accountable before God not only for abandoning their office, as Judas did, but also for the souls under their care.

Neither of these would be necessary if the RCC was right in it’s interpretation of these verses.

You will have to explain this one, because you lost me here. Of course there have been many Catholics who have abandoned the One Faith. All of the Reformers were baptized Catholics who left the faith, and began teaching falsehoods. The same is true for all the early heretics…they started out Catholic.

The Holy Spirit is never wrong, man, however is a different matter.

What you seem to be saying is that the Holy Spirit is too weak or ineffectual to actually lead the Church into “all Truth”. That the willfulness of man is more powerful than God?

Yet we see sin in the church, we see Jesus in Revelation talking about the issues in the churches that can result in Him removing the Lamp Stand. Church is all the out-called ones.

I think one reason that people cannot accept the promises of Christ lies in this deficient view of the Church. Yes, the church does contain the body of believers on earth, but that is only part. It also contains all who have gone before us in the faith, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets. Of course if one does not believe the church is really Holy, with Christ as her head and the HS as her Soul, then one can attribute error to the Church. But the Church is incarnational, like Jesus, with both divine and human elements.

Yes, sin causes the light of Christ to be extinguished in us. Sin severs our relationship with Christ and the Church (because He is one with HIs Church). Sin, however, only affects the believer who is attached to the Body, and those members of the Body who are wounded by the sin. Sin cannot change the immutable and divine elements of the Church. She can still be led Once more, Paul, Peter, and the other writers of the NT never say that if they listen to one person in particular everything will be ok, instead they speak of holding fast to a truth, not to the office of a human.

 

[guanophore]

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed ! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed !

It is the gospel message that is the benchmark, not an office of teacher or Apostle.

These are not separated, Kliska. Jesus committed the Gospel to His Apostles, and they to their successors, the Bishops. These were given the authority to preserve, protect and promulgate the Gospel. What they “received” was the Apostolic faith. It is that faith that was abandoned during the Reformation, so that what Protestants have today is a truncated form of the Gospel.

Paul even say if he starts preaching a different gospel, let him be damned. He didn’t say; all of us Apostles are always right on with the gospel so make sure you always do and believe what we say and teach. Instead he says, here is the gospel, all messages must line up with that, and even if I start saying something else, don’t believe me. So either it is truth, or it is hyperbole that Paul could preach error.

I do think that Paul has a tendency to be hyperbolic, and yes, any person has the potential to teach error. The faithful have the responsibility to know their faith and not be led away from it, but it is the duty of the teaching authority appointed by Christ to keep them in the faith.

Church is individuals come together.

Yes, but this is only part of “church”. It is like taking an elephant by the ear and saying “this is the elephant”. Of course it is, but there is a lot more to it than that!

Again Paul was clear that it is the message that is the norming factor, not a person or office.

It is both, Klisha. The message is not separated form the ministers. The Apostles were divinely entrusted with the message, and they charged their successors to be faithful custodians of it. That is the purpose of the offices. All scripture is profitable. In whose hands, and for what purpose?

" he gave gifts to men. 11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12** to equip the saints** for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love. " Eph. 4

I don't think we are nearly as fractured as the RCC believes.

I sojourned amongst my separated brethren for 20 years before coming back to the Apostolic faith. It is extremely fractured.

If I have Christ as my head, and you have Christ as your head… well, we are indeed part of the same body. I think recent Popes are starting to understand this. More protestants are starting to understand this. Unity is recognizing Jesus for Who He is, and unity is shown in Love.

Amen!

I realize that is what people from your pov believe, we just disagree.

So it seems like someone slipped out from under the Head.

 just like in a game of telephone.  If I start the telephone game and write down the word that I'm sending around, when the word gets to the end of the line, I can double check it with what is written.  God favored this method, as we see it in the Old and New Testament.

Except that when Telephone is played, the HS is not there watching over His word to perform it.

The problem with the “checking” is that people read and understand Scripture in the light of their experience and education (or lack of it) so that people have different understandings. So the writer of the Epistle can say “a different gospel” than the Catholic one that was delivered, and a modern person who does not realize the NT church was Catholic will say that the CC is the one with the different Gospel.

The RCC view is that God won’t ever let a person in the line change the word to be passed on, I don’t see that in scripture. I see warning after warning that contradicts that view.

This is false. The Catholic Church is not Roman, first of all, and secondly, the CC has no such view. No one is protected from falling away from the faith.

Jesus has promised that the CHURCH will not fall into error. He did not set things up so that people would just pick up a Bible and try to figure it out by themselves. He established a Church to get us to heaven.

 

[benhur]

Jesus has promised that the CHURCH will not fall into error.

Does he actually say this “negative” ? He does say the positive, guiding into all truth. Are the two exclusive ? Can you never fall, even for a split second, on a faith or moral issue, and then get back on track per His grace, in 2 thousand years ? And what is a second to the Lord ?

He did not set things up so that people would just pick up a Bible and try to figure it out by themselves.

Agreed. Not formally sufficient technically speaking

He established a Church to get us to heaven.

He did not set things up so that you just attend church for understanding. The church is also formally insufficient technically speaking. Attending church does not make you a Christian just as sitting in a garage does not makes you a car.

 

[benhur]

…to keep His promise to guide her into “all Truth”. The promise was made to the Church, not to individual Christians.

Actually was it not made to the apostles and all those who would follow ? I think it proportionately appropriate for all His disciples, in differing degrees according to His good pleasure. Not sure I would dichotomize Church and individual that much. A little (for there are offices) but not that much as you state . Perhaps Kliska has some good scripture to that end , that the HS has same ministry to us all as far as guidance and enlightening , even bringing to remembrance of taught truths.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

. Perhaps Kliska has some good scripture to that end , that the HS has same ministry to us all as far as guidance and enlightening ,** even bringing to remembrance of taught truths**.

It would be difficult to have a remembrance of something or anything when you, sola scriptura, and the protestant reformers were never present to receive the divine revelations.

The only one present were the members who received the Apostolic teachings and traditions first hand who all of the Catholic Church according to St.Ignatius.

 

[benhur]

]Yes, sin causes the light of Christ to be extinguished in us. Sin severs our relationship with Christ and the Church (because He is one with HIs Church). Sin, however, only affects the believer who is attached to the Body, and those members of the Body who are wounded by the sin. Sin cannot change the immutable and divine elements of the Church.

I am wondering if you can not accept the church being able to error or sin , because of your view of sin and the believer, the individual. That if a christian “sins” the light is extinguished. A do or die thing . An off and on again thing. In grace, out of grace. So in that regard I also would not apply that to the church either. Of course you have your degrees for this (venial/mortal) , still the idea of on off again is foreign to many P’s. What we think of our personal walk and how we remain “in”, in grace, still born again, still His child despite sin, we apply to "church .That she will always be the Bride, the Body, the Eclesia, the Church despite her not always being on the mark 100 % ,100% of the time, like she has a health meter, like a living organism.

 

[benhur]

**It would be difficult to have a remembrance of something or anything when you, sola scriptura, and the protestant reformers were never present to receive the divine revelations.**The only one present were the members who received the Apostolic teachings and traditions first hand who all of the Catholic Church according to St.Ignatius.

Perhaps I might clarify. Of course I can not recall what I have not been taught, nor recall something when I was not there. Just as the HS helped the apostles remember those 3 and half years with Christ, and all those synagogue /temple readings as a youth, and Jewish utterances form their parents etc. so to with us . He helps us remember those catechism classes, religious instruction from parents, teachers, prophets. No stone is unturned and all bread cast upon the waters returns and leads to enlightenment per the HS 's good graces and purposes.

 

[guanophore]

Actually was it not made to the apostles and all those who would follow ?

Yes. The Apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church. Christ came with all authority, and He transmitted that authority to His Apostles, who in turn, transmitted it to their successors, the Bishops. Only those who are in unity with this teaching authority appointed by Christ can benefit from the promise. All who are in unity with them will benefit from it. Your characterization of “all who would follow” is too broad.

I think it proportionately appropriate for all His disciples, in differing degrees according to His good pleasure.

I am not really sure what this means. “proportionally appropriatae”? His promise was to lead the Church into “ALL truth”, not just a portion.

Clearly though, many ecclesial communities have retained significant parts of the Apostolic faith, and to that extent, they can be said to be in unity with the successor of Peter and the other Apostles and Prophets that are the foundation stones of the Church. We can all receive the benefits of the promise if we are in unity with those to whom the promise is made.

Not sure I would dichotomize Church and individual that much. A little (for there are offices) but not that much as you state . Perhaps Kliska has some good scripture to that end , that the HS has same ministry to us all as far as guidance and enlightening , even bringing to remembrance of taught truths.

It is not a dichotomy, the relationship f the individual to the Church. We are made members of His One Body at baptism. We may be dead wood (not connected to the lifegiving vine) and only a source of weight. Or, as you say, each one responds to the call of the HS to find one’s gift and bring it to bear upon the Church and is animated by the HS can benefit to God’s promises to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I am wondering if you can not accept the church being able to error or sin , because of your view of sin and the believer, the individual.

No. I cannot accept it because of my view of God, his nature, and His promises. Since He is Head of the Church, and the HS is the Soul of the Church, these divine elements prevent her from error.

 That if a christian "sins" the light is extinguished. A do or die thing . An off and on again thing. In grace, out of grace. So in that regard I also would not apply that to the church either.  Of course you have your degrees for this (venial/mortal) , still the idea of on off again is foreign to many P's. What we think of our personal walk  and how we remain "in", in grace, still born again, still His child despite sin, we apply to "church .

Sin does not cause one to be “unborn again”. On the contrary, ,the last state of that person is worse than the first, since they have been sealed with the Spirit.

One does not cease to be His child just because one rejects one’s birthright, just as the Prodigal son did.

I think that Protestants have difficulty understanding the Church as Holy is because they have inherited a deficient concept of the Church.

That she will always be the Bride, the Body, the Eclesia, the Church despite her not always being on the mark 100 % ,100% of the time, like she has a health meter, like a living organism.

Indeed, she is a living organism, ,as Scripture states. Those members of her that fall into sin are diseased parts of the organism, and thus negatively impact the health of the whole. But no amount of the sins of man can nullify the perfection of God. He said He would be with us until the end of the Age, and we believe Him.