If you are denying this, then state your case for the unity of the intrepretation of Scripture.
That certainly doesn’t look like 33,000 different interpretations or opinions to me. There are deep divisions amongst pasrishioners in your own church on subjects like the Real Presence, the Marian dogmas and even Scripture. Protestant churches have set doctrines just as yours does, but it doesn’t stop people from drawing their own conclusions.
That’s very different to making a specific claim of a specific number. Theres a guy here on another thread posted about 250 then ran out of steam using some excuse or other. Theres also a lot of double entry booking going on. I too would love to have a definitive list of all 33,000 protestant faiths with all of their dogmas and doctrines - as continuously alleged by certain catholic posters. I dont dispute there are deep divisions between various protestant sects, but if people are going to keep bandying about a figure of 33,000, then at least be able to name them all for credibilities sake.
Instead of obfuscating, why don’t you actually state the facts about the unity of Protestantism and tell us where the lines are drawn between the cults and mainstream? You are denying the obvious. Is the Vineyard Church a cult or a mainstream Protestant denomination? If so, on whose authority is at cult?
Thats baloney and you know it. Diversity in belief amongst parishioners in your church is a huge deal. Its the difference between a Catholic and a heretic in the eyes of the Roman church. What if a parishioner doesn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception and takes communion every Sunday? No big deal right? They have a catechism, they’ll figure it out someday. So then, what is that authority you have that we don’t? Are you saying that we don’t have Christ?
What are you talking about. Anglicans have a catechism, lutherans have a catechism, baptists have a catechism… The poster has no idea what they are talking about. That is becoming more and more obvious.
The only meat products are coming from you. I really have a hard time following your reasoning.
Now you are placing words into my post that don’t exist. I never said Paul says scripture corrects the Apostles. The Apostles gave us scripture. Paul is saying scripture corrects period. That means any teachings on faith need to coincide with scripture. And yes that includes heresy, and any doctrines of faith introduced that are not found in scripture. With regard to 3:15 yes sacred writings are OT. But NT is also sacred and considered scripture. 2 Peter 3 labels Paul’s writings as scripture among others. Anything inspired by GOD is considered scripture. And yes your argument falls apart.
I didn’t say Roman said tradition trumps scripture. STOP placing your words into my posts. We’re speaking of church authority. I stated scripture is the final authority. Roman stated scripture is authoritative because it’s historically accurate but not the ultimate authority. I responded that that the Bible is not a history book. You can’t claim authority from something that is not the ultimate authority.
No I understand completely how the church works. The church holds tradition equal to scripture. It’s not. Tradition has to be validated against scripture.
Yes the Apostles are dead in this life. They are not alive to validate these supposed traditions. And Apostolic does not mean authority passed down from Jesus. Apostolic simply means teachings of the Apostles PERIOD. The Roman Catholic Church has extended the meaning to now include authority and succession. Catholic simply means universal. It’s taken from the Greek word katholicos which is an adjective meaning universal. Yet you Capitalize it and use it as a label. Learn some church history.
No the immaculate conception is found nowhere in scripture. It’s gymnastic interpretations of scripture placing meaning into words that don’t belong. I guess when Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph came together using the Greek word synerchomai for come together it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with them having marital relations. Yet synerchomai is a verb meaning conjugal cohabitation. In other words living together having sex. But no the RCC uses a non-canonical gospel the Infancy Gospel of James to justify its position. This even though the early church never accepted it as neither inspired nor historically accurate.
Sorry dear heart you stand corrected. The list is canon received by the councils yes. But if the list is infallible then that means the church accounted for everything that COULD be considered infallible. That would mean no writings outside of the infallible list can be used to justify doctrines of faith. That would include the writings of the ECFs and other works used like the infancy Gospel of James. And the official canon most certainly does affect oral tradition. If it doesn’t then you place oral tradition on its own with no authoritative oversight. Can’t happen.
No it’s not ridiculous. Are you saying we are aware of every writing that was ever compiled during the Apostolic generation? I think not. How about the works that may have been destroyed when Rome destroyed Jerusalem. You are making a ridiculous statement when you try and say the church accounted for everything that was ever written and evaluated it to determine if it was infallible or not.
Ok so let’s go with your statement then. We have an infallible list of infallible writings. Then again that means any writing outside of that list cannot be used for doctrines of faith that don’t coincide with the infallible writings in the list. You’ve boxed yourself in here.
Don’t put this on me. This is all having to do with your church. If someone who doesn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception takes communion, they are outside the parameters of the church. I know that and so do you. People’s individual beliefs don’t invalidate church teaching whether they are Catholic or Protestant but the point is that they do exist. Diversity exists in the Catholic church the same as it exists elsewhere. Never is everyone on the same page.
Apparently you missed the point of our conversation:
Then please enlighten me Roman.
You even quoted this statement of mine.
Very true. But then that still means scripture has to be the final authority if you derive authority from it. Otherwise the church can do anything it wants by claiming equal authority to scripture. That just can’t be.
Apostolic teaching obviously. The church taught that forgiveness was yours if you professed your faith and trust in Christ. Until that point forgiveness was practiced by works of the law. I don’t deny this so I don’t see your point unless you are implying that forgiveness would be granted by the church had scripture never been created. Obviously that’s not what GOD intended which is why we have scripture.
Angels sorry to interrupt here but I have a question for you. Do you really believe authority brings unity??
And how does this contradict Catholic teaching?
You haven’t produced a single iota of evidence in the above that the Bible teaches it is the final authority. Your logic goes, Paul says that the OT scripture should be used for correction. Peter says Paul’s writings are Scripture. Therefore, the Bible is the final authority.
That’s not apparent at all in what you’ve said.What does any of this do with demonstrating a Biblical proof for the Bible being the final authority?
You’ve produced nothing to back up your statement, so I suppose we must take that statement on YOUR authority. Where did you get your authority?
They don’t need to be, they are part of Church history. Such as the veneration of the saints.
A brighter person might have noticed that I capitalized One, Holy, and Apostolic as well, and would not have drawn the conclusion that I did not understand the meaning of the word catholic.
Another person might have noticed that I used the word “implict”.
Anyone interested in where the teaching comes from can read another thread on the Immaculate Conception and on the papal documents, but it is based on much, much, more than this below:
The perpetual virginity of Mary comes from more than just this source, as you should know. I cannot speak to the Greek word for synerchomai.
You are completely incorrect that the Church determined all that was infallible at the closing of the canon, and history demonstrates it beyond any discussion.
I wonder if the reason why you are so upset is because you realize how absolutely absurd what you are saying is.
No, YOU have boxed yourself in. WRITINGS are Scripture. The canon refers to WRITINGS.
Apostolic teaching - yes - so the church, led by the apostles, forgave sins upon their confession, before the scripture was written. In fact, for many years, the Eucharist, confession of sins and so forth would have been practiced on the authority of apostoloc succession. Then the scriptures were written. Many scriptures. And there followed a series of councils by the successors of the apostles to agree the canon.
Yes, I’ve turned out the lights. Goodnight.When you two are done, could you straighten up the furniture and turn the lights out in the thread?
Angels I’ll reply to your “materialist” post tomorrow once things have settled down here a bit. I don’t think our discussion would currently get the attention it deserves if it had to compete with the current one.
Thank you, for the sake of unity I will make no jokes about spreading darkness.Yes, I’ve turned out the lights. Goodnight.
