Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[eddie_too]

the Orthodox Church does not use the term infallible to discuss the works of any bishop or council. Orthodox Christians regard the concept of infallibility to be uniquely Western and therefore avoid the use of defining or terming even Ecumenical Councils as infallible.

i think that it is incorrect to claim that any christian church or group besides the RCC claims the charism of infallibility.

if there is documentation available that demonstrates that other christian churches claim this charism, i would be interested in reviewing it.

i was unable to find any such documentation.

i do not consider mormon claims to be in the christian tradition.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The starting point is reasonable. I don’t want to read into what you’re saying, but it seems as if you’re saying you can make a reasonable starting point with church history and come to enough of a fallible conclusion that you can objectively know which church is infallible, but when it comes to God the Holy Spirit being able to speak in Scripture so that Christians can understand Him, He lays a goose egg that only a specific caste system in the church can figure out?

When God intends to do something, He does it. No ifs or buts.
HOWEVER, while we see that Jesus INTENDS to build a Church, we DON’T see that He intends all people to receive the Gospel and interpret it correctly apart from the Church.

If you think otherwise, then you’ll a) have to show me why you think so and b) explain why this has been such a miserable failure.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Nope. Let’s see, there’s the Eastern Orthodox, the RCC, the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Orthodox, the Mormons, and the Jehovas Witnesses. At least.

So, which of those are you going to join?

 

[Per_Crucem]

the Orthodox Church does not use the term infallible to discuss the works of any bishop or council. Orthodox Christians regard the concept of infallibility to be uniquely Western and therefore avoid the use of defining or terming even Ecumenical Councils as infallible.

i think that it is incorrect to claim that any christian church or group besides the RCC claims the charism of infallibility.

if there is documentation available that demonstrates that other christian churches claim this charism, i would be interested in reviewing it.

i was unable to find any such documentation.

i do not consider mormon claims to be in the christian tradition.

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7063

oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/infallibility

 

[FathersKnowBest]

i do not consider mormon claims to be in the christian tradition.

Nor do they claim infallibility, as one prophet can contradict another.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/infallibility

Orthodoxy does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope of Rome, nor of any other individual.

Orthodoxy upholds the reality that the Church, gathered together in Council under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is guided in making correct decisions and in enunciating truth.

True, but they believe that there can be no ecumenical councils. Therefore, no infallibility.

 

[eddie_too]

neither of the citations provided come from the orthodox church because no one speaks for the orthodox church as a single entity.

the orthodox affirm the infallibility of ecumenical councils once the council’s result has been affirmed by the faithful, but that is not the same as having a doctine of infalliblity promulgated by the whole of the orthodox bishops or orthodox faithful.

it does affirm however that many of the orthodox believe, although as a body it has not defined it as a doctrine, Christ gave His Church the charism of infallibilty.

it seems to be a “get out of jail free card” to assert that infallibilty only exists when the whole body of the faithful agree with the teachings of an ecumenical council.

i say this because the orthodox do not define what is meant by the whole body of the faithful. how many can disagree before the whole body is not agreeing? one, ten, 100, ten thousand, how many?

so, they may claim to endorse infallibility within the church but the way they define it makes it nebulous and of little value.

the orthodox concept of infalliblity is far different from the RCC’s doctrine.

the orthodox recognize the need but do not posses the necessary mechanism for addressing the need.

 

[Per_Crucem]

neither of the citations provided come from the orthodox church because no one speaks for the orthodox church as a single entity.

the orthodox affirm the infallibility of ecumenical councils once the council’s result has been affirmed by the faithful, but that is not the same as having a doctine of infalliblity promulgated by the whole of the orthodox bishops or orthodox faithful.

it does affirm however that many of the orthodox believe, although as a body it has not defined it as a doctrine, Christ gave His Church the charism of infallibilty.

it seems to be a “get out of jail free card” to assert that infallibilty only exists when the whole body of the faithful agree with the teachings of an ecumenical council.

i say this because the orthodox do not define what is meant by the whole body of the faithful. how many can disagree before the whole body is not agreeing? one, ten, 100, ten thousand, how many?

so, they may claim to endorse infallibility within the church but the way they define it makes it nebulous and of little value.

the orthodox concept of infalliblity is far different from the RCC’s doctrine.

the orthodox recognize the need but do not posses the necessary mechanism for addressing the need.

I’m not saying they define it the same, or that it is correct. I am simply saying that they claim infallibility for councils, traditions, et al.

 

[joe371]

the Orthodox Church does not use the term infallible to discuss the works of any bishop or council. Orthodox Christians regard the concept of infallibility to be uniquely Western and therefore avoid the use of defining or terming even Ecumenical Councils as infallible.

i think that it is incorrect to claim that any christian church or group besides the RCC claims the charism of infallibility.

if there is documentation available that demonstrates that other christian churches claim this charism, i would be interested in reviewing it.

i was unable to find any such documentation.

i do not consider mormon claims to be in the christian tradition.

 

[joe371]

So, which of those are you going to join?

 

[joe371]

I’m not saying they define it the same, or that it is correct. I am simply saying that they claim infallibility for councils, traditions, et al.

What is the EOC’s official claim regarding the following, was a question I had to ask myself long ago:

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, (cephas) and upon this rock (cephas) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

That was the church I wanted to belong to…That is the church of John 16:13 and John 14:16. One thing I realized long ago: sola scriptura is a bankrupt system that continues to divide and fracture Jesus’ mystical Body…There is no way that SS is from God, for God is about oneness and unity, and doctrinally speaking that is what we see in the CC. Even the EOC is comprised of separate, autocepholous churches. However, I do believe that they have valid sacraments, something they do not believe about the CC.

 

[joe371]

I’m not saying they define it the same, or that it is correct. I am simply saying that they claim infallibility for councils, traditions, et al.

Do we agree that all Protestant churches were establish by men no earlier than the 16th century?

 

[Per_Crucem]

What is the EOC’s official claim regarding the following, was a question I had to ask myself long ago:

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, (cephas) and upon this rock (cephas) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

That was the church I wanted to belong to…That is the church of John 16:13 and John 14:16.

So why should I trust your fallible interpretation of that verse being indicative of the RCC? The EO states that that passage is addressed to their church, for their bishops.

You see, the point to that, is for all of the arguments you raise about no way to know which doctrine is true from Scripture because of the fallibility of Protestants is not solved by an appeal to an infallible authority outside of Scripture. At best, you’ve just moved it back one step. You’ve solved one problem and created another. Outside of that infallibile authority of the church, you have no other infallible authority to tell you which church is infallible. You must rely on your own fallible belief in that church and history. I don’t see how that is different than a Baptist who relies on his fallible interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Do we agree that all Protestant churches were establish by men no earlier than the 16th century?

No.

 

[joe371]

No.

No…OK. Which Protestant church can trace its lineage all the way back to the apostles?

 

[Per_Crucem]

No…OK. Which Protestant church can trace its lineage all the way back to the apostles?

You’re interjecting a Catholic presupposition here. The presupposition being that one must trace its lineage, via bishops, to a laying on of hands back to the apostles. That is not the presupposition I am working from. Mine is based on whether one can trace teaching/doctrine back to the apostles. Not bishops. Since only a Catholic or Orthodox Christian uses that presupposition, it’s not one I can answer.

 

[joe371]

Per Crucem;11838584]So why should I trust your fallible interpretation of that verse being indicative of the RCC? The EO states that that passage is addressed to their church, for their bishops.

Again, you should not trust my fallible interpretation for that is the practice of sola scriptura. You should only trust the church founded by Jesus: "I will build my church…’'as opposed to mere men like Smith, Luther, Swingli Calvin and the list goes on and on…

You see, the point to that, is for all of the arguments you raise about no way to know which doctrine is true from Scripture because of the fallibility of Protestants is not solved by an appeal to an infallible authority outside of Scripture.

If you are right then its logical to conclude that the CC got it wrong when defining doctrines like the Trinity, if in fact there is no infallible authority outside the pages of scripture; surely you would agree with that statement? If that is true then we are left with an infallible book with absolutely no way to infallibly interpret it. Scripture says otherwise. You just don’t want to accept that either the EOCs or the CC is that authority. If you feel comfortable with an infallible book and no way to infallibly interpret, that’s cool. Were just talking and having fun…

At best, you’ve just moved it back one step.

:banghead:Lol…Jesus founded one church, gave His one church the Spirit of Truth on Pentecost to guide His one church into all truth, until the end of time (regarding doctrine only). It’s really quite simple. You and I go to the scriptures and we reach an impasse because we were not given the promise of perpetuity, in terms of all truth. The bible tells us to take it to the church because the manifold wisdom of God is revealed via His one church. CCC 817 reminds us though that truth can be found in other churches as well…Just not the fullness of truth.

 

[joe371]

You’re interjecting a Catholic presupposition here. The presupposition being that one must trace its lineage, via bishops, to a laying on of hands back to the apostles. That is not the presupposition I am working from. Mine is based on whether one can trace teaching/doctrine back to the apostles. Not bishops. Since only a Catholic or Orthodox Christian uses that presupposition, it’s not one I can answer.

Can your church or the Lutheran church (the oldest) trace its lineage back to the apostolic age without going through the CC? If so then I agree.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Again, you should not trust my fallible interpretation for that is the practice of sola scriptura. You should only trust the church founded by Jesus: "I will build my church…’'as opposed to mere men like Smith, Luther, Swingli Calvin and the list goes on and on…

We don’t claim our church was founded by Luther. You know that, right?

If you are right then its logical to conclude that the CC got it wrong when defining doctrines like the Trinity,

Only if you grant that the church that defined the Trinity is the same entity as the modern Roman Catholic Church. I don’t.

if in fact there is no infallible authority outside the pages of scripture; surely you would agree with that statement?

It’s no more logical to conclude that the church got it wrong on the Trinity because it was fallible, then it is to conclude you have everything wrong because you’re fallible. Because you can get something wrong, doesn’t mean you did get something wrong.

If that is true then we are left with an infallible book with absolutely no way to infallibly interpret it.

And?

Scripture says otherwise. You just don’t want to accept that either the EOCs or the CC is that authority. If you feel comfortable with an infallible book and no way to infallibly interpret, that’s cool. Were just talking and having fun…

Because, again, I don’t operate in a Cartesian universe where I am required to know something infallibly in order to know it. I don’t have an infallible knowledge of physics, it doesn’t mean I will suggest you jump off any buildings any time soon, because hey, it’s fallible and you could float!

:banghead:Lol…Jesus founded one church, gave His one church the Spirit of Truth on Pentecost to guide His one church into all truth, until the end of time (regarding doctrine only). It’s really quite simple. You and I go to the scriptures and we reach an impasse because we were not given the promise of perpetuity, in terms of all truth. The bible tells us to take it to the church because the manifold wisdom of God is revealed via Hie one church. CCC 817 reminds us though that truth can be found in other churches as well…Just not the fullness of truth.

And again, I’m waiting for the evidence that you infallibly know that the RCC is infallible. If you claim you don’t know that infallibly, then I am not sure how your position is superior over the position of a fallible knowledge of infallible Scripture.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Can your church or the Lutheran church (the oldest) trace its lineage back to the apostolic age without going through the CC? If so then I agree.

Yep. We claim to be that church, joe.