Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Per_Crucem]

You shouldn’t! Only Jesus’ established church circa AD 33, on Pentecost, is infallibly guided by God; not me. That’s my point vis-a-vis doctrinal truth. However, grammatically speaking, it seems pretty straightforward. You are cephas and on this cephas…It’s not: you are cepha but on this cephas…

So the Roman church has infallibly interpreted Matthew 16 to mean that Rome is the church that can infallibly interpret Matthew 16? Circular much?

God infallibly guides all the other churches?

No. Though, by and large, we agree more than disagree (by we I mean the East, Rome and Lutheranism).

 

[Per_Crucem]

Not the same as to have sinned. Their baptism is not because they have sinned but to remove the stain of original sin and to introduce that life into the Christian life and the graces of God.

That much is true. However, it is equally true that apart from baptism, we simply don’t know what happens.

But I see you are changing the meaning of “to have”, kinda like “sola” not really meaning “alone”.

Not so much.

 

[Per_Crucem]

What is your response to this:

I see in the early Catholic Church, councils e.g. Nicaea, Ephesus etc., convoking and using sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to resolve doctrinal differences. It was this system that worked when quashing heresy. Clearly this system, (which began in Acts 15, in Jerusalem, when the church was in its infancy) was part of Gods authoritative plan so that heresies such as Marcionism, Donatism, Gnostcism, Montanism, and Pelagianism, to name a few, could be quashed i.e. God infallibly guided these councils. Should this paradigm continue today? If not then why not? Sola scriptura (16th century invention, for lack of a better word) seems to have taken the place of these critical Ecumenical Councils…

Who is arguing about that, however? The fact is, though, that apart from Protestantism, the supposed infallible authority of Popes and councils did not prevent two infallible authorities from springing up. If Scripture alone is insufficient (and it is, to an extent. If Scripture alone is defined as solo scriptura), then so is Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That much is true. However, it is equally true that apart from baptism, we simply don’t know what happens.

That’s why Sacraments are a mystery

 

[joe371]

Who is arguing about that, however? The fact is, though, that apart from Protestantism, the supposed infallible authority of Popes and councils did not prevent two infallible authorities from springing up. If Scripture alone is insufficient (and it is, to an extent. If Scripture alone is defined as solo scriptura), then so is Scripture and Tradition.

True, Jesus’ one Catholic Church split. However, that does not mean that God stopped infallibly guiding His Church. That system (Petrine office and Ecumenical Councils) continues to this day. It sounds like you believe that God stopped infallibly guiding His church after the east-west schism? Correct me if I am wrong? However, you then mentioned that every sola scriptura church, other than the Baptist Church, is infallibly guided.

 

[joe371]

That much is true. However, it is equally true that apart from baptism, we simply don’t know what happens.

The good thief, and no one prior to Jesus, was baptized, and the good thief went to heaven, as did people like Moses, etc…

 

[Per_Crucem]

True, Jesus’ one Catholic Church split. However, that does not mean that God stopped infallibly guiding His Church. That system (Petrine office and Ecumenical Councils) continues to this day. It sounds like you believe that God stopped infallibly guiding His church after the east-west schism? Correct me if I am wrong? However, you then mentioned that every sola scriptura church, other than the Baptist Church, is infallibly guided.

That was a joke on Baptists.

 

[joe371]

That was a joke on Baptists.

Initially, that was what I thought. Being tired has made me stupid…LOL

 

[Per_Crucem]

The good thief, and no one prior to Jesus, was baptized, and the good thief went to heaven, as did people like Moses, etc…

God is able to work apart from means (the means of baptism), wherever and whenever He chooses. Clearly He chose to do so with the thief on the cross. We have no word from God for anyone else who is not baptized. Therefore, we attach salvation to God’s chosen means; word and sacrament. It’s possible that all unbaptized children who die go to heaven. It’s possible none do. We just don’t know.

Of course, those in the OT died before baptism was instituted. The means then were different than in the New Covenant.

 

[joe371]

That was a joke on Baptists.

If every sola-scriptura church, (including the Baptist Church - Lol), is infallibly guided by God, then every church (comprised of fallible leaders as is the case with the CC) should have the same infallible truths regarding any one doctrine i.e. all sola scriptura Churches would have the same beliefs regarding the Eucharist - right?

 

[joe371]

God is able to work apart from means (the means of baptism), wherever and whenever He chooses. Clearly He chose to do so with the thief on the cross. We have no word from God for anyone else who is not baptized. Therefore, we attach salvation to God’s chosen means; word and sacrament. It’s possible that all unbaptized children who die go to heaven. It’s possible none do. We just don’t know.

Of course, those in the OT died before baptism was instituted. The means then were different than in the New Covenant.

Great point. I always say: God gave us the sacraments but certainly God is not confined to them!!! Likewise, God gave us His church but certainly God can work outside His church, as per the catechism of the Catholic Church. However, I still have faith that God has preserved all truth in His one church:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[Per_Crucem]

If every sola-scriptura church, (including the Baptist Church - Lol), is infallibly guided by God, then every church (comprised of fallible leaders as is the case with the CC) should have the same infallible truths regarding any one doctrine i.e. all sola scriptura Churches would have the same beliefs regarding the Eucharist - right?

Sure. But I am not arguing that. The reason I am Lutheran, as opposed to Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, or Presbyterian is I believe they are all wrong about key doctrines. I just don’t feel the need to press the infallibility angle in order to be convinced of that.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Great point. I always say: God gave us the sacraments but certainly God is not confined to them!!! Likewise, God gave us His church but certainly God can work outside His church, as per the catechism of the Catholic Church. However, I still have faith that God has preserved all truth in His one church:

And I am all for you believing that. I have no desire to convince you that Catholicism is wrong. I would rather you be convinced of it fully, than to be half-hearted. That doesn’t change the fact that I think on certain key doctrines, you’re wrong.

 

[joe371]

God is able to work apart from means (the means of baptism), wherever and whenever He chooses. Clearly He chose to do so with the thief on the cross. We have no word from God for anyone else who is not baptized. Therefore, we attach salvation to God’s chosen means; word and sacrament. It’s possible that all unbaptized children who die go to heaven. It’s possible none do. We just don’t know.

Of course, those in the OT died before baptism was instituted. The means then were different than in the New Covenant.

In my humble opinion, unbaptized children would go straight to heaven…No one would disagree with that, if you really think about it…Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

 

[joe371]

And I am all for you believing that. I have no desire to convince you that Catholicism is wrong. I would rather you be convinced of it fully, than to be half-hearted. That doesn’t change the fact that I think on certain key doctrines, you’re wrong.

That’s cool. Of course you should not trust my opinion. Heck, I didn’t trust my opinion when it came to doctrine that divides, as a former sola scriptura advocate. LOL…I think that is why Jesus chose infallibly guide His church via every generation of leaders, beginning with the apostles. However, I respect everyone’s right to disagree…Well, I must get some shut-eye; have a good night…

 

[Per_Crucem]

In my humble opinion, unbaptized children would go straight to heaven…No one would disagree with that, if you really think about it…Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

I wouldn’t disagree out of hand. I would be more cautious in the case of non-Christian parents, though. Martin Chemnitz said the following in regards to that:

“This teaching [the doctrine of the hypostatic union] is not idle sophistry, for it is an article of faith that Mary did not beget a man in whom God dwelt. Rather she bore the only Son of God by receiving His flesh, as Augustine says, “He was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary who for this reason and in this sense is correctly called the God-bearer (Theotochos).” If reverently considered, this act produces the most comforting thoughts. For the Son of God embraced the human race with such great love that He did not shrink from descending to such a humble state that He not only did not assume a man who was already formed and born, but rather He united to Himself personally an individual human body in the very moment of its conception and made it His own. Thus the Son of God in assuming His own flesh, but without sin, also endured those things which commonly befall man in conception, pregnancy, and birth (as the fathers of the Council of Ephesus said), so that from His very beginning, rise, and, as it were, root, He might first restore in Himself our depraved nature and so cleanse and sanctify our contaminated conception and birth that we might know that Christ’s salvation applies even to man’s fetus in conception, gestation, and birth.”

and:

“…] in such cases the Grace of God is not bound to the Sacraments, but those infants are to be brought and commended to Christ in prayers. And one should not doubt that those prayers are heard, for they are made in the name of Christ. Since, then, we can not bring infants as yet unborn to Christ through Baptism, therefore we should do it through pious prayers. Parents are to be put in mind of this, and if perhaps such a case occur, they are to be encouraged with this comfort.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sure. But I am not arguing that. The reason I am Lutheran, as opposed to Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, or Presbyterian is I believe they are all wrong about key doctrines. I just don’t feel the need to press the infallibility angle in order to be convinced of that.

You know, we Catholics drink beer too

 

[Per_Crucem]

You know, we Catholics drink beer too

Thank God!

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11831979]That is the inescapable logical conclusion, even though it is never stated explicitely.

The reason it is not stated is because that conclusion stands outside of reason, and more importantly, Christ’s promise.

Correct. The Catholic Church still exists.

Amen. And the EO, and Lutheranism, and others, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

The fullness of the seven sacraments is not available in protestantism.

I know you have to say that, and should as a Catholic. You know I as a Lutheran will respectfully disagree, for even though we may not phrase 4 of them as “sacrament”, we still have them, and the grace they bring.

Authority can’t be dispersed and remain authority.

Exactly the problem the Church has faced for a thousand years.

Was Luther a Lutheran? He claimed to have authority.

Citation.

True, but the Magisterial Authority of the Church persists in the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome.

But many of the Bishops are missing. Without the other patriarchs, authority is dispersed.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And you. Or do you also believe the Orthodox are the one true infallible church, too? You aren’t the only one making those claims for your church body, you know.

No, but they do have the fulness of the sacraments, although not the fullness of the truth.

However, the differences between our faiths are very few and they are in error about very little.

But I find this argument extremely disingenuous. Protestants will always use the existance of the Orthodox as a way to justify any splinter group. IF you were to be Orthodox, then we’d have something to discuss. As it is, you are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, and thus your church is not of divine origin, but rather man-made.