You can't have it both ways.

[JonNC]

=joe370;7017866]"]Hey Jon, how ya doing…

Hi Joe. I’m doing fine. Hope you are, too.

Rightlydivide and UniversalistGuy do not agree with you. How would you convince them that SS does not eliminate or exclude the need or use of Tradition?

I don’t know that I can, anymore than you can. They wouldn’t listen to Luther, or Martin Chmenitz’s quote I posted, so there’s little chance I would have any influence. I suspect further, that many who hold their position, are more likely solo scriptura, as explained by Keith Mathison here:
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

I might add that, as has rightly been pointed out that sola scriptura is not in the Bible, per se, the practice is not a doctrine. In addition, failure to subscribe to the practice is not issue of salvation.

Jon

 

[Rightlydivide]

It’s amazing how God could preserve scripture and yet He couldn’t preserve the Church… now isn’t it?

Whether you agree or disagree with our position, we do not think that God could not do something. Do we? Have you heard us say that?

 

[StTommyMore]

It’s amazing how God could preserve scripture and yet He couldn’t preserve the Church… now isn’t it?

He has preserved the Church. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is still around. It is sinful humans that have willingly left, but the Church has not fallen.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Wrong, Jimmy, and sorry for the late entry.
The practice of sola scriptura does not eliminate or exclude the need or use of Tradition.
It is important to note that the very first section of the Lutheran Confessions, The Book of Concord, is not any writing from anyone from the 1600’s, but instead the three ecumenical creeds.

Extra-biblical does not mean wrong, necessarily.

Because they are not, and those who claim they are are mistaken.

Not necessarily, unless you are willing to say that there would be only one Church that relies of Scripture and Tradtion, which isn’t the case.

That there is any division in Christianity is the result of human sin.

Blessings to you, Jimmy.

Jon

Believe it or not Jon, I usually think about you before posting and I say to myself… This probably isn’t going to apply to Jon, or any of those who belong to the early Anglican, Lutheran and the other very early Protestant Churches but, I know it applies to someone here at CAF.

Luckily, I have you to come in a clear a lot of things up for me …Thank you!

Blessings to you as well Jon!

 

[nickybr38]

He has preserved the Church. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is still around. It is sinful humans that have willingly left, but the Church has not fallen.

I know. That’s the reality that hit me in the head, really hard, when I was having my doubts.

Because in the end Scripture isn’t enough. It’s important, it’s a divine blessing, but it’s not enough.

I am very, very thankful to have the physical presence of the Church.

Now I’m going to quietly duck out of this thread again because I am sooo not prepared for a debate over Scripture. Haha.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I know. That’s the reality that hit me in the head, really hard, when I was having my doubts.

Because in the end Scripture isn’t enough. It’s important, it’s a divine blessing, but it’s not enough.

I am very, very thankful to have the physical presence of the Church.

Now I’m going to quietly duck out of this thread again because I am sooo not prepared for a debate over Scripture. Haha.

You are the first person to say what a lot of us feel… thank you!

 

[joe370]

Can we slow down and go back to your original presupposition.
Does the Bible contain a passage that says that we have an infallible interpreter of scripture?
What do you believe it (they) is/are?

OK…

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be with His apostles forever, and that the HS would guide Jesus’ church into all truth, again, forever. If you respond by saying: these passages don’t apply to the CC simply provide me with the name of the church that these verses to apply to?

John 14 - I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Clearly Jesus is referring to just the apostles here. Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit…

*"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. *

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.* But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.**
*

Jesus talking to just His fledgling church as opposed to all Christians comprising His church.

*He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Jesus’ fledgling church…

*He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. *

Jesus’ fledgling church…

*All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. *

Make it known to you or me or one of the 16th, 17th…21st century churches or make it known to the church He founded?

Recap:

Jesus gave to His fledgling church (to be with his church forever) - the spirit of truth, Who, as per the holy bible, (when He finally arrived on Pentecost) - is guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, again, forever, not just until the bible is codified.

Now, back to my question:

Rightlydivide, well, I really tried to understand things from your perspective friend.

If you are right then there is absolutely no way for the world to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong when people cannot agree, doctrinally speaking? For example,Christianity is divided regarding the Eucharistic doctrine. Most protestants believe that Jesus meant:

This is a symbol of my body…

The CC, EOC and most Lutheran churches believe that they meant:

This is my body…

And since there is no inspired interpreter (church) - there is no way to know with certainty, the truth regarding this particular teaching of Jesus Christ.

Is this your contention???

 

[joe370]

Universalist, you said:

Yes I’ve a thought and a question. You said earlier that you tried to prove your points using Bible verses. I think it’s a mistake to think you can actually prove any of this stuff whatever you use. If it could be proved there would be no room for faith, would there? The people who think they can prove what they believe are only proving it in their own minds. And all that happens is that they get mad and call people names.

I think you are generalizing what he is saying. If something could be proven, of course faith wouldn’t be necessary. Is it a mistake for SS advocates to think that they can actually prove that the bible alone is the Christians sole rule of faith and only authority regarding faith and morals - **using just the bible alone? **

Again, let’s assume that you are right about SS. Let’s assume that the inspired word of God (bible alone) - is the sole source of truth and the Christians only authority regarding faith and morals, and everything and anything outside the purview of sacred scripture is extraneous at best.

With that said, surely God left the world with an inspired interpreter for His inspired word - yes or no?

If yes, then can you please identify the inspired interpreter of the inspired word of God?

If no, then there is absolutely no way for the world to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong when people cannot agree, doctrinally speaking? For example,Christianity is divided regarding the Eucharistic doctrine. Most protestants believe that Jesus meant:

This is a symbol of my body…

The CC, EOC and most Lutheran churches believe that Jesus meant:

This is my body…

And since there is no inspired interpreter (church) - there is no way to know with certainty, the truth regarding this particular teaching of Jesus Christ.

Is this your contention as well?

 

[JonNC]

Believe it or not Jon, I usually think about you before posting and I say to myself… This probably isn’t going to apply to Jon, or any of those who belong to the early Anglican, Lutheran and the other very early Protestant Churches but, I know it applies to someone here at CAF.

Luckily, I have you to come in a clear a lot of things up for me …Thank you!

Blessings to you as well Jon!

Goodness, Jimmy, my reputation precedes me. Not sure that’s good or bad.

For me, it is simple; if the seven early councils, the three creeds, etc., properly reflect scripture, which they do, why would one reject them, just because they are not part of scripture? If we are willing to consider the thinking of modern-day theologians, why would we reject those of the early Church?

Jon

 

[Rightlydivide]

joe370:
In John 14, Christ is speaking to the Apostles and the lessons are applicable to Christians today. The Holy Spirit teaches all things. In determining the precise meaning of all things, because even Catholics place limits around what all things means (ie faith and moral statements although that is not directly stated), it is important to look at the context:
We still have that perfect spirit of Truth in us and the very words of the Apostles.
Lets look at the passage

*23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. *

This is a prophecy about scripture. That is how we keep His word. That is how we find His word.

 

[JonNC]

Jon you said, “That there is any division in Christianity is the result of human sin.”

**If nothing is impossible for God, **then certainly God could maintain the doctrinal unity of the church He founded in Jerusalem, circa AD 33, in spite of human sin - maybe, maybe not?

Yes, Joe, but you and I believe in the free will of the regenerate. Certainly that doctrinal purity and Truth is still preserved, particularly in that part of the Church we both hope to eventually meet up in.
In addition, I still see today the efforts of the Holy Spirit to bring unity to His Church Militant.
Jon

 

[joe370]

JonNC;7018198]Yes, Joe, but you and I believe in the free will of the regenerate. Certainly that doctrinal purity and Truth is still preserved, particularly in that part of the Church we both hope to eventually meet up in.

Jon, that doctrinal purity and Truth is still preserved in Jesus’ earthly church too, according to the bible. The church triumphant really has no need for doctrinal truth (although they know it better than us) - It’s His earthly church that desperately needs those truths and Jesus gave us a way to know those truths so that when people attempt to contort those truths eg. this is a symbol of my body…they can be refuted. If those truths cannot be known with certainty eg - this is my body…as opposed to, this is a symbol of my body…then the holy spirit is not guiding Jesus’ church into all truth. If we agree that truth is necessary for salvation, eg unless you eat my flesh…you have no life in you… then clearly Jesus would preserve said truth so that all Christians (not just those Christians that belonged to Jesus’ church prior to the east west schism) - can know truth - right?

In addition, I still see today the efforts of the Holy Spirit to bring unity to His Church Militant.

Me too.

 

[joe370]

**

**

;7018143]In John 14, Christ is speaking to the Apostles and the lessons are applicable to Christians today.

Agreed.

Rightlydivide, again, if you are right and there is no inspired interpreter of the inspired word of God, then there is absolutely no way for the world to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong, when people cannot agree, doctrinally speaking? Again, for example, Christianity is divided regarding the Eucharistic doctrine. Most protestants believe that Jesus meant:

This is a symbol of my body…

The CC, EOC and most Lutheran churches believe that He meant:

This is my body…

And since there is no inspired interpreter (church) - there is no way to know with certainty, the truth regarding this particular teaching of Jesus Christ which is crucial to everlasting life according to sacred scripture.

Is this your contention?

 

[joe370]

Jon, will you answer the question addressed to Rightfullydivide:

If he is right and there is no inspired interpreter of the inspired word of God, then there is absolutely no way for the world to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong, when people cannot agree, doctrinally speaking? Again, for example, Christianity is divided regarding the Eucharistic doctrine. Most protestants believe that Jesus meant:

This is a symbol of my body…

The CC, EOC and most Lutheran churches believe that He meant:

This is my body…

And since there is no inspired interpreter (or is there???) - there is no way to know with certainty, the truth regarding this particular teaching of Jesus Christ which is crucial to everlasting life according to sacred scripture?

 

[Rightlydivide]

**
Agreed.

 

[joe370]

joe370;7018338:

Of course there is not an infallible interpreter we can all agree on. The world does not accept Catholic interpretation or any Christian interpretation with certainity.
What you really mean to say is that you believe with certainity that an infallible interpreter exists in Rome.
Authority is usually only persuasive to those inside the group, my group included.

So, in your mind, there is no way to discern, with certainty,the doctrinal truths (eg the Eucharist ) - found in the holy bible. Well, if that were true, I wouldn’t be a Christian. What good is the word of God if truth found in the word of God cannot be ascertained, with certainty my friend?

Let’s leave Rome out of it…

 

[Izdaari]

Infallible does not mean “sinless.” The doctrine of infallibility means that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching in error.

I know infallible doesn’t mean “sinless”, and I’m prepared to forgive a fairly high degree of naked ambition, venality, corruption, etc., but the history of the Church as Wills has presented it shows plenty of examples, repeated many times, of the Church teaching in error, very grievous error, such as a number of Popes deliberately perpetuating the myth of Jews sacrificing Christians for sinister purposes. I don’t see the CC as having a better handle on the Truth than other Christian churches, so it seems to me the doctrine of infallibility has been shown to be untrue.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I know infallible doesn’t mean “sinless”, and I’m prepared to forgive a fairly high degree of naked ambition, venality, corruption, etc., but the history of the Church as Wills has presented it shows plenty of examples, repeated many times, of the Church teaching in error, very grievous error, such as a number of Popes deliberately perpetuating the myth of Jews sacrificing Christians for sinister purposes. I don’t see the CC as having a better handle on the Truth than other Christian churches, so it seems to me the doctrine of infallibility has been shown to be untrue.

Hello Izdaari,
Without any specifics, I have no idea what you are talking about. For example, what Christian denomination are you comparing to Catholicism here… all of them? See what I mean. You have made a fairly strong assertion and provide no specific details that explain why you feel the way that you do.
Thank you for your post, I look forward to your response.

 

[joe370]

**

Izdaari:
I know infallible doesn’t mean “sinless”, and I’m prepared to forgive a fairly high degree of naked ambition, venality, corruption, etc., but the history of the Church as Wills has presented it shows plenty of examples, repeated many times, of the Church teaching in error, very grievous error, such as a number of Popes deliberately perpetuating the myth of Jews sacrificing Christians for sinister purposes. I don’t see the CC as having a better handle on the Truth than other Christian churches, so it seems to me the doctrine of infallibility has been shown to be untrue.**

Izdaari, help me find the church founded by Jesus, where the pillar of truth can be found, thanks to the fact that the HS is forever guiding that church into all truth. Help me find that church since you clearly don’t think the CC is that church. Go…

Like Tommy said: Infallible does not mean “sinless.” The doctrine of infallibility means that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching in error regarding all that Jesus taught - ONLY.

Naked ambition, venality, corruption, etc., have existed in the church founded by God, in many forms, and in many generations, but these things have never altered doctrinal truth according to your bible…according to God’s biblical promise. Even if a bad Pope was deliberately perpetuating the myth of Jews sacrificing Christians for sinister purpose, (please provide citations) - ** that has nothing to do with doctrinal truth being safeguarded in the CC by the HS. Jesus tells us that there will be plenty of bad people both laity and clerical doing some bad things in His church; he makes no bones about that in the bible, but again, doctrinal truth will forever remain intact. **

If the CC is the church founded by Jesus, perhaps trusting that Jesus will fix his church when needed, is a good idea, just as Francis of Assisi trusted, when Jesus said to him:

“Francis, go repair my house, which is falling in ruins.”

Jesus didn’t tell him to go out and start his own church when Jesus’ church was falling in ruins. I don’t think Jesus would be too impressed with people leaving his church for the reasons you gave, to start their our own churches.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

1,500 years wasn’t it?

The ‘sole’ purpose of Sola Scriptura (no pun intended) is to justify Protestantism’s rebellion and continued secession from the Catholic Church. It allows them to ignore 2000 years of Christian history.