You can't have it both ways.

[UniversalistGuy]

Hey UniversalGuy…
UniversalistGuy;7027519:

If sola Scriptura was the only way to ascertain truth I guess there’d be some indication of that idea in the Old Testament. But there ain’t. At least I can’t see any. As to which is the true reformed church I’ve no idea. It’s extremely confusing.

If Jesus’ church was reformed, it should still be the one church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD 33, as opposed to another church founded by a mere man - right?

Right.

What about the catholic reformation eg, the removal of abuses - that took place alongside the protestant reformation?

But they didn’t remove the doctrine, did they?

UniversalistGuy;7027519:

So when your interpretation of the Bible didn’t fit with your FORMER

Lutheran boss man’s interpretation of the Bible you got pushed out. I’ll think about that for a while. I wonder what Martin Luther would have made of that? He knew what it felt like to get thrown out of his church for following his conscience didn’t he?ML rejected the authority of the CC, (which is OK with me if you can prove that the CC is not the church founded by God; I couldn’t ) - the ministerial priesthood, free will, 4 books of the NT, seeing them as as non-canonical, (yet his successores kept them in there) - 7 of the OT, and the teaching that faith without works is dead, just to name a few.

There’s no way you can prove any of this stuff.

UniversalistGuy;7027519:

I’m still thinking about how relevant/important some of the doctrines are.

OK, but is it really your call or my call to make? God did not send me or you the HS to guide me or you into all truth until the end of time?

Yes of course it’s my call to make.

UniversalistGuy;7027519:

I don’t think the Orthodox have a problem with papal primacy. It’s papal supremacy they object to. And I think I do as well.

Hey, the EOC was almost my choice until I read the writings of the early church in the east.

So when it was your call to make you chose the Catholic Church.

Also, Jesus’ church is built on Kepha and the EOC rejects that biblical fact, so that was it for me.

Somebody’s oversimplifying Church history.

UniversalistGuy;7027519:

My objection to indulgences isn’t to do with any supposed “abuse” in the Middle Ages. Indulgences are linked to purgatory and as I object to purgatory I object to indulgences as well.

Well, if you reject purgatory then I can certainly see why you reject indulgences. By the way, the EOC believes in a purgative process they just don’t call it purgatory.

Are you sure about that?

After all, they pray for the dead, and those in heaven don’t need their prayers and those in hell, sadly, cannot take advantage of their prayers.

They do pray for the dead. I know you’re right about that.

UG, in Matthew’s Gospel there is a tremendous confrontation between Christ and the Pharisees, in which they accuse Him of exercising authority over demons by the power of Beelzebul, the “prince of demons.” (Mt. 12:24) - Jesus then warns them of the sin against the Holy Spirit and states:

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit* will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. ***(Mt. 12:31-32)

Some sins cannot be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come, some sins can be forgiven in the age to come. Without using the word “purgatory,” Jesus is presenting teachings that are in perfect harmony with the Catholic teaching on purgatory and are difficult to interpret from an protestant perspective.

I don’t know about all Protestants but I know Evangelicals don’t believe in purgatory.

What about the reference in scripture to a prison in which we would not be released until we hve “paid the last cent” — this is certainly not heaven or hell. We never get out of hell, and heaven is no prison.

What about it?

Paul writes:

For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble — each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:11-15)

The passage is quite clear: Gold and silver, when placed into a furnace, would be purified; wood and hay would be burned away. As this is done, scripture says we will suffer loss, but be saved “as through fire.” Isn’t the image of purgatory becoming more vivid to you - maybe? To what else could Paul be referring? He can’t be referring to hell, because it’s clear that the people who undergo this “purifying fire” will be saved, while those who are in hell are lost forever, and yet he can’t be referring to heaven, because he mentions the suffering of loss, while in heaven every tear will be wiped away. (Rev. 21:4)

I don’t think the passage is clear at all.

Your thoughts my friend?

You are working very hard. But this purgatory idea is weak and once it’s gone into it seems to me to get weaker and weaker.

 

[joe370]

Hey UniversalGuy…

ML rejected the authority of the CC, (which is OK with me if you can prove that the CC is not the church founded by God; I couldn’t ) - the ministerial priesthood, free will, 4 books of the NT, seeing them as as non-canonical, (yet his successores kept them in there) - 7 of the OT, and the teaching that faith without works is dead, just to name a few.
There’s no way you can prove any of this stuff.

Martin Luther saying this stuff is not proof enough? See my post 219 for just a few examples. I’m not making this stuff up and I am not trying to censure ML; just quoting ML.

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
What about the catholic reformation eg, the removal of abuses - that took place alongside the protestant reformation?
But they didn’t remove the doctrine, did they?

Nope. Should they; If so then why?

Originally Posted by UniversalistGuy View Post
I’m still thinking about how relevant/important some of the doctrines are.
OK, but is it really your call or my call to make? God did not send me or you the HS to guide me or you into all truth until the end of time?

That came out wrong; a little verbal diarrhea. LOL… I suppose it’s ok to pick and choose, or reject doctrines, based on our interpretation. Free will… I guess I just trust the church founded by God, forever guided by the HS into all truth, doctrinally speaking, but that didn’t happen over night; far from it.

Originally Posted by UniversalistGuy View Post
I don’t think the Orthodox have a problem with papal primacy. It’s papal supremacy they object to. And I think I do as well.
Hey, the EOC was almost my choice until I read the writings of the early church in the east.

So when it was your call to make you chose the Catholic Church.

I guess I deserved that little jibe. LOL…

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Also, Jesus’ church is built on Kepha and the EOC rejects that biblical fact, so that was it for me.
Somebody’s oversimplifying Church history

.

Jesus’ church is not built on Kepha? "…you are cephas and on this cephas I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas, which, when translated, is Peter.”

1 Corinthians 1:12
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas “; still another, “I follow Christ.”

1 Corinthians 3:22
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,
1 Corinthians 9:5
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

Well, if you reject purgatory then I can certainly see why you reject indulgences. By the way, the EOC believes in a purgative process they just don’t call it purgatory.
Are you sure about that?

If not then why pray for the dead? Those in heaven don’t need our prayers; those in hell have no recourse to them. Research it, if you get the chance, and let me know if I am wrong regarding the EOC’s belief that it is necessary to believe in an intermediate after-death state in which believers are perfected and brought to full glory? If I am wrong I will gladly concede.

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Your thoughts my friend?
You are working very hard. But this purgatory idea is weak and once it’s gone into it seems to me to get weaker and weaker.

You sound pretty sure of yourself so I won’t press it. Just one thing: What do you think purgatory is according to the CC?

 

[Cranmer2010]

Cranmer, you said to Jimmy:

That’s what Jimmy is talking about, I believe: some SS advocates disagree with you, and therefore we cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact definition of sola scriptura, and until a SS advocate can do so, how reliable can it be?

You said:

Cranmer, using SS as the Christians final authority,do you believe that the bible alone can settle, once and for all, the hotly debated dispute regarding the following:

This is my body

or

This is a symbol of my body?

If the bible alone is the Christians final authority then let’s use it to resolve this doctrinal difference? Even if you and I come to the same conclusion, SS still doesn’t work until all Christians draw the same conclusion, based on the bible alone as the Christians final authority. Always bothered me as a former non-Catholic.

Help me out here friend.

I’m afraid that the teachings of Catholicism aren’t the be-all to end-all either. Catholics to this day disagree on what exactly the Eucharist is and even whether Jesus was born of a virgin-woman. Proclaiming something to be so doesn’t make 100% of the faithful be lock in step with it. It’s the same for Protestants and even Orthodox Christians as well.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m afraid that the teachings of Catholicism aren’t the be-all to end-all either. Catholics to this day disagree on what exactly the Eucharist is and even whether Jesus was born of a virgin-woman. Proclaiming something to be so doesn’t make 100% of the faithful be lock in step with it. It’s the same for Protestants and even Orthodox Christians as well.

People within the Church may disagree but official Catholic teaching, as I’m sure you know, quite clearly teaches that the Eucharist is the substance of Jesus contained within the bread and wine and that Jesus was born of a virgin woman.

 

[Cranmer2010]

People within the Church may disagree but official Catholic teaching, as I’m sure you know, quite clearly teaches that the Eucharist is the substance of Jesus contained within the bread and wine and that Jesus was born of a virgin woman./QUOTE

So? My church teaches the very same thing.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’m afraid that the teachings of Catholicism aren’t the be-all to end-all either. Catholics to this day disagree on what exactly the Eucharist is and even whether Jesus was born of a virgin-woman. Proclaiming something to be so doesn’t make 100% of the faithful be lock in step with it. It’s the same for Protestants and even Orthodox Christians as well.

Hello Cranmer2010,

This post here tells me that you don’t really understand Catholicism. We are not the denomination that allows for any personal interpretations that conflict with official Catholic doctrine. A Catholic that disagrees with the Catholic Church on officials Catholic beliefs is acting outside of Catholicism. Where on the other hand, in many Protestant denominations, it’s ok to disagree. I am afraid that you are viewing Catholicism through a modern, Protestant lens.

Your thoughts?

 

[Cranmer2010]

Hello Cranmer2010,

This post here tells me that you don’t really understand Catholicism. We are not the denomination that allows for any personal interpretations that conflict with official Catholic doctrine. A Catholic that disagrees with the Catholic Church on officials Catholic beliefs is acting outside of Catholicism. Where on the other hand, in many Protestant denominations, it’s ok to disagree. I am afraid that you are viewing Catholicism through a modern, Protestant lens.

Your thoughts?

You are mistaken here. I am very well aware of how and why the hierarchy works in the Catholic church. You are correct that some Protestant churches allow for opinions within so called doctrine, others do not. But what difference does it make?? I know Catholics who don’t even believe that the Eucharist is anything more than symbolism. Have they been excommunicated?? No. There are Catholics who blatantly worship the Virgin Mary. Are they kicked out? Again the answer would be no. The point here is that no matter what the church proclaims, the faithful will not be 100% lock in step, Catholic or not.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You are mistaken here. I am very well aware of how and why the hierarchy works in the Catholic church. You are correct that some Protestant churches allow for opinions within so called doctrine, others do not. But what difference does it make?? I know Catholics who don’t even believe that the Eucharist is anything more than symbolism. Have they been excommunicated?? No. There are Catholics who blatantly worship the Virgin Mary. Are they kicked out? Again the answer would be no. The point here is that no matter what the church proclaims, the faithful will not be 100% lock in step, Catholic or not.

Hello again Cranmer2010,

I can appreciate what you are saying here but you’re still confusing Protestantism and Catholicism and now you seem to be confusing Catholicism, the religion and those people who are members, or claim to be members. The myth that “Catholics don’t even agree” is a common Protestant recruiting point that doesn’t square with the reality found in the Catholic Church. The only Catholics I’ve met that disagree with the Catholic Church, on the things that define us as Catholic, are either uniformed Catholics, former Catholics or non-observant Catholics. They don’t speak for the Catholic Church, you know that. The Catholic Church itself is united under one Pope, one Creed, one Mass, one Liturgy, one Catechism, seven Sacraments and one magisterium and so on. For example, go to any Catholic Mass, any Wedding Mass, any Funeral Mass, any Baptismal Mass, Confirmation an so on and show me the “disagreement”. Catholicism is not Protestantism. There are some very distinct differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Although, the older the Protestant denomination, the closer, generally, they are to the original Church, the Catholic Church, from which all others broke from. Wouldn’t you agree? I hope this helps.

Your thoughts?

 

[joe370]

I’m afraid that the teachings of Catholicism aren’t the be-all to end-all either. Catholics to this day disagree on what exactly the Eucharist is and even whether Jesus was born of a virgin-woman. Proclaiming something to be so doesn’t make 100% of the faithful be lock in step with it. It’s the same for Protestants and even Orthodox Christians as well.

Cranmer, if you are going to make factual statements please back them up. Christians belonging to the CC do not disagree on the Eucharist. If a catholic claims what you say, then that catholic doesn’t have to remain a catholic. That is why the teaching office is so important. SS is absent of such office, if in fact SS is the Christians final authority. I know of no protestants or catholics that doubt that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Back to my original question. I didn’t ask if Catholicism was the be-all to end-all. I said and then asked you:

That’s what Jimmy is talking about, I believe: some SS advocates disagree with you, and therefore we cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact definition of sola scriptura, and until a SS advocate can do so, how reliable can it be?

Cranmer, using SS as the Christians final authority,do you believe that the bible alone can settle, once and for all, the hotly debated dispute regarding the following:

This is my body

or

This is a symbol of my body?

If the bible alone is the Christians final authority then let’s use it to resolve this doctrinal difference? Even if you and I come to the same conclusion, SS still doesn’t work until all Christians draw the same conclusion, based on the bible alone as the Christians final authority. Always bothered me as a former non-Catholic.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Hell again Cranmer2010,

I can appreciate what you are saying here but you’re still confusing Protestantism and Catholicism and now you seem to be confusing Catholicism, the religion and those people who are members, or claim to be members. The only Catholics I’ve met that disagree with the Catholic Church, on the things that define us as Catholic, are either
uniformed Catholics, former Catholics or non-observant Catholics. They don’t speak for the Catholic Church, you know that. The Catholic Church itself is united under one Pope, one Creed, one Mass, one Catechism, seven Sacraments and one magisterium and so on. Catholicism is not Protestantism. There are some very distinct differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Although, the older the Protestant denomination, the closer, generally, they are to the original Church, the Catholic Church, from which all others broke from. Wouldn’t you agree? I hope this helps.

Your thoughts?

I’m well aware that you are trying to establish total exclusivitey in this argument for the Catholic church. The problem is that you simply can’t do it. My church proclaims the Nicene Creed to be a proclamation for the faith, same as the Catholic church. But the truth is that there are folks in both churches that won’t adhere to one thing or another found within it. There isn’t a difference! period. They would be defying both Catholicism and Anglicanism.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Cranmer, if you are going to make factual statements please back them up. Christians belonging to the CC do not disagree on the Eucharist. If a catholic claims what you say, then that catholic doesn’t have to remain a catholic. That is why the teaching office is so important. SS is absent of such office, if in fact SS is the Christians final authority. I know of no protestants or catholics that doubt that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Back to my original question. I didn’t ask if Catholicism was the be-all to end-all. I said and then asked you:

That’s what Jimmy is talking about, I believe: some SS advocates disagree with you, and therefore we cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact definition of sola scriptura, and until a SS advocate can do so, how reliable can it be?

Cranmer, using SS as the Christians final authority,do you believe that the bible alone can settle, once and for all, the hotly debated dispute regarding the following:

This is my body

or

This is a symbol of my body?

If the bible alone is the Christians final authority then let’s use it to resolve this doctrinal difference? Even if you and I come to the same conclusion, SS still doesn’t work until all Christians draw the same conclusion, based on the bible alone as the Christians final authority. Always bothered me as a former non-Catholic.

Your statement has no furthering merit though. You seem to have no response to those Catholics who do not adhere to what your catechism teaches regarding the Eucharist. You continue to think that somehow there is a difference between Catholics who do not adhere to teaching of the church and Protestants who do the same in their church.

 

[joe370]

Cranmer, you said:

So? My church teaches the very same thing.

So for you, your final authority for teaching from the bible alone, interpreting the bible and resolving doctrinal differences found in the bible, is your church leadership, as opposed to the bible alone as your final authority via your individual interpretation?

 

[Cranmer2010]

Cranmer, you said:

So for you, your final authority for teaching from the bible alone, interpreting the bible and resolving doctrinal differences found in the bible, is your church leadership, as opposed to the bible alone as your final authority via your individual interpretation?

You don’t seem to know much about the Anglican church do you?

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’m well aware that you are trying to establish total exclusivitey in this argument for the Catholic church. The problem is that you simply can’t do it. My church proclaims the Nicene Creed to be a proclamation for the faith, same as the Catholic church. But the truth is that there are folks in both churches that won’t adhere to one thing or another found within it. There isn’t a difference! period. They would be defying both Catholicism and Anglicanism.

]

“Nicene Creed”

Excellent point, now how many other non-Catholic, Protestant denominations are there who believe in “Sola scriptura” and don’t profess the Creed?

 

[Cranmer2010]

Many. But I do not belong to any of them.

 

[joe370]

Your statement has no furthering merit though. You seem to have no response to those Catholics who do not adhere to what your catechism teaches regarding the Eucharist. You continue to think that somehow there is a difference between Catholics who do not adhere to teaching of the church and Protestants who do the same in their church.

Well, I thought perhaps, you would be the guy that would answer this question. No one has ever answered this question, ever, other than JonNC.

Why does my question have no merit? I have no authority over those catholics that rejects catholic teachings. However, the CC does and it’s their call.

OK, here is my response: There is NO difference between Catholics who do not adhere to the teaching of the church and Protestants who do the same in their church. Both should be asked to leave their respective churches if they don’t want to embrace the beliefs of either the catholic or protestant church.

Does my question deserve merit now?

If it does, then using SS as the Christians final authority,do you believe that the bible alone can settle, once and for all, the hotly debated dispute regarding the following:

This is my body

or

This is a symbol of my body?

If the bible alone is the Christians final authority then let’s use it to resolve this doctrinal difference? Even if you and I come to the same conclusion, SS still doesn’t work until all Christians draw the same conclusion, based on the bible alone as the Christians final authority. Always bothered me as a former non-Catholic.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’m well aware that you are trying to establish total exclusivitey in this argument for the Catholic church. The problem is that you simply can’t do it. My church proclaims the Nicene Creed to be a proclamation for the faith, same as the Catholic church. But the truth is that there are folks in both churches that won’t adhere to one thing or another found within it. There isn’t a difference! period. They would be defying both Catholicism and Anglicanism.

“Nicene Creed”

Excellent point, now how many other non-Catholic, Protestant denominations are there who believe in “Sola scriptura” and don’t profess the Creed? Don’t confuse, confused people with official Church doctrine. You are helping me prove my point here. Keep up the good work.

 

[joe370]

Cranmer…

So for you, your final authority for teaching from the bible alone, interpreting the bible and resolving doctrinal differences found in the bible, is your church leadership, as opposed to the bible alone as your final authority via your individual interpretation?
You don’t seem to know much about the Anglican church do you?

You don’t seem to know much about the Anglican church do you?

I’m confused. I ask you certain questions so that I can better understand where you are coming from and you change the subject.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Well, I thought perhaps, you would be the guy that would answer this question. No one has ever answered this question, ever, other than JonNC.

Why does my question have no merit? I have no authority over those catholics that rejects catholic teachings. However, the CC does and it’s their call.

OK, here is my response: There is NO difference between Catholics who do not adhere to the teaching of the church and Protestants who do the same in their church. Both should be asked to leave their respective churches if they don’t want to embrace the beliefs of either the catholic or protestant church.

Does my question deserve merit now?

If it does, then using SS as the Christians final authority,do you believe that the bible alone can settle, once and for all, the hotly debated dispute regarding the following:

This is my body

or

This is a symbol of my body?

If the bible alone is the Christians final authority then let’s use it to resolve this doctrinal difference? Even if you and I come to the same conclusion, SS still doesn’t work until all Christians draw the same conclusion, based on the bible alone as the Christians final authority. Always bothered me as a former non-Catholic.

I believe as most Anglicans do that Scripture should always be the final authority but not the only authority drawn from. In the case of the Eucharist, both Scripture and the Early Church obviously agree that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Anglicans would steadfastly agree.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Cranmer…

I’m confused. I ask you certain questions so that I can better understand where you are coming from and you change the subject.

You charged me with being SS. You are showing that you misunderstand Anglicanism. That’s what I said.