Thaddeus73 said:

---

Yes,, as opposed to your personal opinion, which carries no weight in historical fact...You wishing it weren't true with no proof whatsoever to back up your outlandish claim against history doesn't change the facts of history...

Quote:

---

lol..Grokipedia is your "scholarly source

---

---

This is why it's hard to take you serious.

I've pointed out that not even Rome, to this day, claims the "Council of Rome" was an ecumenical church or that anything that relates to it was definitive or universal.

I've pointed out that Roman Catholic Cardinals acknowledged that as far back as Jerome, the deuterocanonical books were understood to be out of Scripture.

I've merely touched on all the problems with the claimed "Gelasian Decree," and the significant issues with that.

So no, it's not my word, it's Rome itself that is on my side in this matter.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Yes,, as opposed to your personal opinion, which carries no weight in historical fact...You wishing it weren't true with no proof whatsoever to back up your outlandish claim against history doesn't change the facts of history...

Quote:

---

lol..Grokipedia is your "scholarly source

---

---

This is why it's hard to take you serious.

I've pointed out that not even Rome, to this day, claims the "Council of Rome" was an ecumenical church or that anything that relates to it was definitive or universal.

I've pointed out that Roman Catholic Cardinals acknowledged that as far back as Jerome, the deuterocanonical books were understood to be out of Scripture.

I've merely touched on all the problems with the claimed "Gelasian Decree," and the significant issues with that.

So no, it's not my word, it's Rome itself that is on my side in this matter.

---

St Jerome is not the Catholic Church

Quote:

---

Modern scholars suggest there are between 200-300 denominations. Definitely not the stupid 43,000 that gets tossed out there, but over 100 for sure. If you want to group certain similar denomination together, we're still around 50. If the minimum of 48 non-Catholic/EO all agree on the "solas", then why is there so much difference?

---

This thread is about something specific, and as I pointed out, there is near uniformity around the topic of this thread.

Quote:

---

If someone wants to know if James Martin or the German Bishops are teaching true Catholic doctrine, there is a place they can go to get a definitive answer. Where do protestants go to determine if their interpretation of Scripture is correct?

The Catholic Church is not "loose with it's beliefs". For good or for bad, Martin and those bishops always hedge their language to avoid outright heresy. If the pope excommunicated them right now, the first accusation would be malevolent dictator overreacting to these individuals opinions. They know what they're doing

---

Well...since I am Lutheran, I would simply point you to the Book of Concord. That's the flaw in your claims against the supposed Lutheran groups with woman ordination. They, like James Martin and the German Bishops, reject the historic teachings in favor of modern secular viewpoints.

Quote:

---

So you quoted Chemnitz, not Augustine.

---

No Chemnitz quoted Augustine in Latin which was later translated into English. Translations may differ slightly, but in either translation I provided, the intent of Augustine is the same.

Quote:

---

Going back to the prior point on the importance of the pope: This right here is why. We have a magisterium, headed by a pope, that can give clarity to these issues. It tends to be a long and patient process, but the process exists. What process do the Lutherans, or any other protestant denomination, have to definitively state if a particular group/interpretation is wrong?

---

We have the exact same process, and yet don't need a claimed magisterium and pope. Nobody needs that.

In fact, we have a very recent example within Lutheranism, I believe with a Lutheran group in South Korea that came out in favor of woman ordination. Like you claim, it was a long and patient process of discussing the theological history and when disagreement persisted, Fellowship was discontinued.

Materially no different a process.

Quote:

---

Augustine knew as much. This is an accurate quote from "on Christian Doctrine" 3.2.2

But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things

---

Lets look more about what Augustine is saying in this passage because it does not say what you think it says.

Quote:

---

2. But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things. But if both readings, or all of them (if there are more than two), give a meaning in harmony with the faith, it remains to consult the context, both what goes before and what comes after, to see which interpretation, out of many that offer themselves, it pronounces for and permits to be dovetailed into itself.

3. Now look at some examples. The heretical pointing, "In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat" (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was), so as to make the next sentence run, "Verbum hoc erat in principio apud Deum" (This word was in the beginning with God), arises out of unwillingness to confess that the Word was God. But this must be rejected by the rule of faith, which, in reference to the equality of the Trinity, directs us to say: "et Deus erat verbum" (and the Word was God); and then to add: "hoc erat in principio apud Deum" (the same was in the beginning with God).

---

Augustine is talking about punctuation or translation. He's pointing out the importance of correct punctuation in making sure the Scriptures speak God's word vs the incorrect punctuation of the heretics.

Two points then. First, he then gives an example that only relies on the rule of faith. That is the Trinity. Second, Sola Scriptura absolutely looks to the Church. I don't claim Nuda Scriptura. I look to Augustine and the other Church Fathers for their understanding.

The key difference is that Rome unilaterally and without justification claims that Rome = Church. The entirity of Christianity, from EO to Protestants disagrees with that claim.

Quote:

---

The reason your first summary did the actual quote such a disservice. He explicitly says that it's not without reason that the ecclesiastical canon was established. The Church (ecclesia) established the canon. If that church wasn't infallible, why should we trust the canon?

---

No, the claim is specifically and unilaterally, Rome via a local council, somehow confirmed a canon that nobody recognized for 1200 years. The Church did align on an understanding of the canon. Nobody disputes that. But that Rome somehow made that decision in 382 is incorrect.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Yes,, as opposed to your personal opinion, which carries no weight in historical fact...You wishing it weren't true with no proof whatsoever to back up your outlandish claim against history doesn't change the facts of history...

Quote:

---

lol..Grokipedia is your "scholarly source

---

---

This is why it's hard to take you serious.

I've pointed out that not even Rome, to this day, claims the "Council of Rome" was an ecumenical church or that anything that relates to it was definitive or universal.

I've pointed out that Roman Catholic Cardinals acknowledged that as far back as Jerome, the deuterocanonical books were understood to be out of Scripture.

I've merely touched on all the problems with the claimed "Gelasian Decree," and the significant issues with that.

So no, it's not my word, it's Rome itself that is on my side in this matter.

---

St Jerome is not the Catholic Church

---

Think yall are going through the different stages of grief.

Yall started with "Jerome changed his opinion." -> Denial

Now we have "Jerome is not the Roman Catholic Church" -> Anger

I wonder what the bargaining stage will bring.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Yes,, as opposed to your personal opinion, which carries no weight in historical fact...You wishing it weren't true with no proof whatsoever to back up your outlandish claim against history doesn't change the facts of history...

Quote:

---

lol..Grokipedia is your "scholarly source

---

---

This is why it's hard to take you serious.

I've pointed out that not even Rome, to this day, claims the "Council of Rome" was an ecumenical church or that anything that relates to it was definitive or universal.

I've pointed out that Roman Catholic Cardinals acknowledged that as far back as Jerome, the deuterocanonical books were understood to be out of Scripture.

I've merely touched on all the problems with the claimed "Gelasian Decree," and the significant issues with that.

So no, it's not my word, it's Rome itself that is on my side in this matter.

---

St Jerome is not the Catholic Church

---

Think yall are going through the different stages of grief.

Yall started with "Jerome changed his opinion." -> Denial

Now we have "Jerome is not the Roman Catholic Church" -> Anger

I wonder what the bargaining stage will bring.

---

Jerome didn't change his opinion, he just submitted to the authority of the Holy Catholic Church. He's still not the Catholic Church. St Gregory the Great would be a better example, given his comments on 1 Maccabees and the fact that he was Pope, but even the Pope is not the Church, nor are his memoirs holy writ.

Zobel said:

---

The whole framing isn't something I would say, I don't believe in the saved / not saved thing, that's a modernist approach anyway. I suspect most Catholics would agree

---

I believe that. I don't think it was ever said in that way, but something that would obviously lead me to that conclusion.

Eventually it will come down to the question in Acts 16:30…"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

Yes, that's a great start. Then we can move on to read everything else St Paul wrote about what having faith means and looks like.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Yes,, as opposed to your personal opinion, which carries no weight in historical fact...You wishing it weren't true with no proof whatsoever to back up your outlandish claim against history doesn't change the facts of history...

Quote:

---

lol..Grokipedia is your "scholarly source

---

---

This is why it's hard to take you serious.

I've pointed out that not even Rome, to this day, claims the "Council of Rome" was an ecumenical church or that anything that relates to it was definitive or universal.

I've pointed out that Roman Catholic Cardinals acknowledged that as far back as Jerome, the deuterocanonical books were understood to be out of Scripture.

I've merely touched on all the problems with the claimed "Gelasian Decree," and the significant issues with that.

So no, it's not my word, it's Rome itself that is on my side in this matter.

---

St Jerome is not the Catholic Church

---

Think yall are going through the different stages of grief.

Yall started with "Jerome changed his opinion." -> Denial

Now we have "Jerome is not the Roman Catholic Church" -> Anger

I wonder what the bargaining stage will bring.

---

Jerome didn't change his opinion, he just submitted to the authority of the Holy Catholic Church. He's still not the Catholic Church. St Gregory the Great would be a better example, given his comments on 1 Maccabees and the fact that he was Pope, but even the Pope is not the Church, nor are his memoirs holy writ.

---

I must admit I find Gregory's viewpoint that anybody claiming to be a universal bishop is the antichrist to be convincing.

Quote:

---

This thread is about something specific, and as I pointed out, there is near uniformity around the topic of this thread.

---

This is about why it's not good to break the faith into "alones". You claim there is near uniformity on this. What proof can you offer that there is uniformity on these? All I see are groups using the same words with different definitions of those words.

Quote:

---

Well...since I am Lutheran, I would simply point you to the Book of Concord. That's the flaw in your claims against the supposed Lutheran groups with woman ordination. They, like James Martin and the German Bishops, reject the historic teachings in favor of modern secular viewpoints.

---

But the book of concord is fallible tradition correct? How can we know that those that are splitting off are leaving a correct tradition vs an incorrect one?

Quote:

---

No Chemnitz quoted Augustine in Latin which was later translated into English. Translations may differ slightly, but in either translation I provided, the intent of Augustine is the same.

---

Agree to disagree here. Those two translation offer wildly different interpretations with very different consequences of believing said translation

Quote:

---

In fact, we have a very recent example within Lutheranism, I believe with a Lutheran group in South Korea that came out in favor of woman ordination. Like you claim, it was a long and patient process of discussing the theological history and when disagreement persisted, Fellowship was discontinued

---

I ask again: if tradition is fallible, how do we know that the staying in the traditional Lutheranism is right, and the S Koreans are wrong? I know you say you still appeal to tradition, and I am acknowledging that. But if your group is parsing out which tradition were aligned with scripture and which ones weren't, how do we evaluate your group's decision vs another claiming to do the same thing? They don't see themselves as departing from the faith.

Quote:

---

Augustine is talking about punctuation or translation. He's pointing out the importance of correct punctuation in making sure the Scriptures speak God's word vs the incorrect punctuation of the heretics.

---

Agreed. And he said the way to determine if you have the correct punctuation/translation is to consult the rule of Faith given by the Church. The Scriptures, by themselves, can't do that. You need the Church for that. And if you need the Church, by definition the Scriptures aren't alone. If the Scriptures are alone, then you don't need the Church.

Quote:

---

The key difference is that Rome unilaterally and without justification claims that Rome = Church. The entirety of Christianity, from EO to Protestants disagrees with that claim.

---

No one claims Rome = The Church. The only claim on the Roman See is that it won't teach heresy. If your local church doesn't want to teach heresy, then it needs to be aligned with the Roman Church in doctrine and dogma. And Catholic still make up 50% of the world, so saying the "entirety" of Christianity disagrees is a false claim. Unless you're one of the "Catholics aren't Christian" types.

Quote:

---

No, the claim is specifically and unilaterally, Rome via a local council, somehow confirmed a canon that nobody recognized for 1200 years

---

That's you and Thaddeus talking. I'm talking about Scripture "alone". How can it be "alone", if Augustine is saying that the Church established it in the quote you provided. Without the Church, there would be no scripture. So how is it "alone?

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Yes,, as opposed to your personal opinion, which carries no weight in historical fact...You wishing it weren't true with no proof whatsoever to back up your outlandish claim against history doesn't change the facts of history...

Quote:

---

lol..Grokipedia is your "scholarly source

---

---

This is why it's hard to take you serious.

I've pointed out that not even Rome, to this day, claims the "Council of Rome" was an ecumenical church or that anything that relates to it was definitive or universal.

I've pointed out that Roman Catholic Cardinals acknowledged that as far back as Jerome, the deuterocanonical books were understood to be out of Scripture.

I've merely touched on all the problems with the claimed "Gelasian Decree," and the significant issues with that.

So no, it's not my word, it's Rome itself that is on my side in this matter.

---

St Jerome is not the Catholic Church

---

Think yall are going through the different stages of grief.

Yall started with "Jerome changed his opinion." -> Denial

Now we have "Jerome is not the Roman Catholic Church" -> Anger

I wonder what the bargaining stage will bring.

---

Jerome didn't change his opinion, he just submitted to the authority of the Holy Catholic Church. He's still not the Catholic Church. St Gregory the Great would be a better example, given his comments on 1 Maccabees and the fact that he was Pope, but even the Pope is not the Church, nor are his memoirs holy writ.

---

I must admit I find Gregory's viewpoint that anybody claiming to be a universal bishop is the antichrist to be convincing.

---

That's still the belief of the Catholic Church even though they don't use the word anti-christ much. There is not only 1 bishop, there are many.

Quote:

---

This is about why it's not good to break the faith into "alones". You claim there is near uniformity on this. What proof can you offer that there is uniformity on these? All I see are groups using the same words with different definitions of those words.

---

You're the one making the affirmative claim that there's 200 groups who have different understandings of the Solas and provided no evidence. I'm not going to do the work for you.

Quote:

---

But the book of concord is fallible tradition correct? How can we know that those that are splitting off are leaving a correct tradition vs an incorrect one?

---

Everything from popes to councils to Martin Luther himself is fallible. Only the Scriptures are infallible.

We hold that the BOC is the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.

But I see what your response is going to be and it actually shows Rome to be an outlier.

Only Rome claims the necessity of a claimed "infallible interpreter."

The Jews did not. Would have problematic for Jesus to have to be constantly correcting a claimed "infallible group.

Even the EO arguably does not make this claim. It's more that if they follow it, it is the correct understanding.

I follow the same reasoning that we believe this to be the correct interpretation because it is the correct interpretation of Scripture by utilizing Scripture to interpret itself.

Quote:

---

Agree to disagree here. Those two translation offer wildly different interpretations with very different consequences of believing said translation

---

yes..but one is a scholarly translation done by actual Latin scholars. The other is a quick translation via google. That's going to give a serviceable response, but by no means scholarly.

It also does not change any of the meaning.

Quote:

---

I ask again: if tradition is fallible, how do we know that the staying in the traditional Lutheranism is right, and the S Koreans are wrong? I know you say you still appeal to tradition, and I am acknowledging that. But if your group is parsing out which tradition were aligned with scripture and which ones weren't, how do we evaluate your group's decision vs another claiming to do the same thing? They don't see themselves as departing from the faith.

---

Because Tradition is also tested against Scripture. So Tradition, coupled with Scripture makes it clear.

Quote:

---

Agreed. And he said the way to determine if you have the correct punctuation/translation is to consult the rule of Faith given by the Church. The Scriptures, by themselves, can't do that. You need the Church for that. And if you need the Church, by definition the Scriptures aren't alone. If the Scriptures are alone, then you don't need the Church.

---

You in fact don't need an infallible human actor to do this. I don't know Latin or Greek or Hebrew or other languages of the Old and New Testament. yet I have at my fingertips multiple translations that suffice for use. No infallible claims necessary.

Quote:

---

No one claims Rome = The Church. The only claim on the Roman See is that it won't teach heresy. If your local church doesn't want to teach heresy, then it needs to be aligned with the Roman Church in doctrine and dogma. And Catholic still make up 50% of the world, so saying the "entirety" of Christianity disagrees is a false claim. Unless you're one of the "Catholics aren't Christian" types.

---

Rome has taught heresy. Rome has taught error.

So your fallback becomes "we used money and influence to become really big and powerful." None of that makes you the "one true church." Nowhere does the Scripture say "whoever has the most followers must be the right church."

Quote:

---

You're the one making the affirmative claim that there's 200 groups who have different understandings of the Solas and provided no evidence. I'm not going to do the work for you

---

The evidence is far and wide. Why else are there so many splits and divisions in denominations? Even at a high level we have multiple Lutheran groups, multiple Methodist groups, multiple baptists groups, a whole host of non-denoms, 7th day adventist, Mormon, and we can go on and on. You disagree with "solo" scriptura because that's not the correct interpretation of "sola" scriptura, but several of these groups disagree with you and your definition. But because you both use the term "sola", you act as if there is agreement. Or those that teach a cheap grace theology version of "faith alone" you'd say are totally wrong, but when confined to a "sola", somehow you agree. You're playing both sides of the fence. Unless you're willing to say that despite them applying the "sola" very differently than you, somehow you still agree.

Quote:

---

I follow the same reasoning that we believe this to be the correct interpretation because it is the correct interpretation of Scripture by utilizing Scripture to interpret itself

---

So does the opposing group. How do we settle that?

Quote:

---

Because Tradition is also tested against Scripture. So Tradition, coupled with Scripture makes it clear

---

This sounds like "and", not "alone"

Quote:

---

You in fact don't need an infallible human actor to do this. I don't know Latin or Greek or Hebrew or other languages of the Old and New Testament. yet I have at my fingertips multiple translations that suffice for use. No infallible claims necessary.

---

Some one somewhere still provides you with the translations, and people will still disagree with the way it should be translated. Hence we need to consult the rule of faith, provided by the Church, to determine how to resolve it. That's what Augustine is saying.

Quote:

---

Rome has taught heresy

---

How do you know? Your group interprets the bible one way, and Rome another. Both use the exact same passages of scripture. Who is equipped to make that call? You? Your pastor? Your president? What do they have that other, disagreeing churches don't. Few, of any, of the groups you disagree with think that they're going against scripture.

Quote:

---

Rome has taught heresy. Rome has taught error.

---

Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Benny Hinn...

Also heretics

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Also heretics

---

Based upon what? The interpretation of the Scripture? I see no difference in them being allowed to personally interpret the scripture the way any other Protestants do at their church. That is their belief to use the Bible to interpret Scripture solely using the Scriptures. This aligns with your belief system.

If they are heretics according to this belief system then all Protestants are heretics or none of them are.

Otherwise you don't actually believe in Sola Scripture and have started your own Church and Tradition and man has "corrupted" you.

Honestly though…

I don't know a ton about early Protestantism, as I only know the modern American kind, but I'm guessing there was not the same issue with Church and Tradition as there is in America. Lutherans and Anglicans come to mind

Spitballing here:

I believe this could come from family owned or business Churches and the idea of Tradition and Church hierarchy has been cast aside for convenience, control and profit.

Individualism is also a large part of American culture.

Don't nobody want no one telling them what to do!!
(I'm in that category outside of God)

Those guys are outside the bounds of scripture and are essentially prosperity pimps. They twist scripture to fit into something it is not.

I understand what you're getting at though. I really cannot stand modern Protestantism, I am sure similar to how you cannot stand any variety of Protestantism.

Our traditional Protestant view of apostolic succession, for example, is something we hold to, however the point of it is that we stay true to the teachings of the Apostles and not veer from that. I suppose again, you're still getting into the issue of interpretation, but this has existed forever. Even the early fathers had to dissect, interpret, and sometimes speculate on the meaning of Scripture. This is why there are topics that are not totally agreed upon in their writings. Interpretation has always been varied.

The very early fathers weren't even writing on deep theological issues anyway, since they were constantly just trying to get the basics down of who Jesus was and fighting off obvious heresy.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Those guys are outside the bounds of scripture and are essentially prosperity pimps. They twist scripture to fit into something it is not.

I understand what you're getting at though. I really cannot stand modern Protestantism, I am sure similar to how you cannot stand any variety of Protestantism.

Our traditional Protestant view of apostolic succession, for example, is something we hold to, however the point of it is that we stay true to the teachings of the Apostles and not veer from that. I suppose again, you're still getting into the issue of interpretation, but this has existed forever. Even the early fathers had to dissect, interpret, and sometimes speculate on the meaning of Scripture. This is why there are topics that are not totally agreed upon in their writings. Interpretation has always been varied.

The very early fathers weren't even writing on deep theological issues anyway, since they were constantly just trying to get the basics down of who Jesus was and fighting off obvious heresy.

---

Interesting. Thanks for the perspective.

Your Church holds to an Apostolic succession?

Which Church? How does that work?

Correct on Pre-Nicene. Lots of apologetics and what we have accepted as basic at this point.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Those guys are outside the bounds of scripture and are essentially prosperity pimps. They twist scripture to fit into something it is not.

I understand what you're getting at though. I really cannot stand modern Protestantism, I am sure similar to how you cannot stand any variety of Protestantism.

Our traditional Protestant view of apostolic succession, for example, is something we hold to, however the point of it is that we stay true to the teachings of the Apostles and not veer from that. I suppose again, you're still getting into the issue of interpretation, but this has existed forever. Even the early fathers had to dissect, interpret, and sometimes speculate on the meaning of Scripture. This is why there are topics that are not totally agreed upon in their writings. Interpretation has always been varied.

The very early fathers weren't even writing on deep theological issues anyway, since they were constantly just trying to get the basics down of who Jesus was and fighting off obvious heresy.

---

Your Church holds to an Apostolic succession?

Which Church? How does that work?

---

Apostolic succession would be based on teaching doctrine as taught by the apostles in scripture and not merely an office position.

So it is more apostolic succession of doctrine vs a chain of bishops.

End of the day, the heart of it is completely and utterly rooted in what the apostles taught in their written word versus what the "orthodox" would claim is incomplete since there is also unspoken tradition that is just as important as what was written.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Those guys are outside the bounds of scripture and are essentially prosperity pimps. They twist scripture to fit into something it is not.

I understand what you're getting at though. I really cannot stand modern Protestantism, I am sure similar to how you cannot stand any variety of Protestantism.

Our traditional Protestant view of apostolic succession, for example, is something we hold to, however the point of it is that we stay true to the teachings of the Apostles and not veer from that. I suppose again, you're still getting into the issue of interpretation, but this has existed forever. Even the early fathers had to dissect, interpret, and sometimes speculate on the meaning of Scripture. This is why there are topics that are not totally agreed upon in their writings. Interpretation has always been varied.

The very early fathers weren't even writing on deep theological issues anyway, since they were constantly just trying to get the basics down of who Jesus was and fighting off obvious heresy.

---

Your Church holds to an Apostolic succession?

Which Church? How does that work?

---

Apostolic succession would be based on teaching doctrine as taught by the apostles in scripture and not merely an office position.

So it is more apostolic succession of doctrine vs a chain of bishops.

End of the day, the heart of it is completely and utterly rooted in what the apostles taught in their written word versus what the "orthodox" would claim is incomplete since there is also unspoken tradition that is just as important as what was written.

---

Thanks, I appreciate the perspective.

Zobel said:

---

You can verify this chain of doctrine?

And also where is this version of apostolic succession taught in scripture?

Quote:

---

there is also unspoken tradition that is just as important as what was written.

---

What does this mean?

---

The chain of doctrine likely comes with the idea one must interpret properly, similar to my comments with Crackerjack. At a certain point every faith tradition must rely on their interpretation of things being correct. And every religious sect likely is not perfect. The idea would be we are not adding or subtracting from what the apostles taught in written form (scripture).

Paul's exhortations to Timothy stand out.

1 Timothy 4:6-8
If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.

1 Timothy 6:2-3
Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness…

2 Timothy 3:10-4:5
You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystrawhich persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. But as for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Your last comment I was just pointing out that a big difference between you and I is that "orthodox" claim the unwritten teachings and tradition are just as important as the written we all have, where traditional Protestants would disagree.

But teaching others doesn't imply apostolic succession. At least I'm not sure how you go from teaching to authority.

And I don't think the orthodox teach that. At least certainly not in those terms.

Zobel said:

---

But teaching others doesn't imply apostolic succession. At least I'm not sure how you go from teaching to authority.

And I don't think the orthodox teach that. At least certainly not in those terms.

---

I appreciate the context of looking to your fathers for tradition and stability but it's certainly not Apostolic succession.

It certainly isn't sola scripture either. Which is great!

Apostolic succession is delineated in Acts 1:20 when Matthias replaced Judas. The apostles weren't one and done...they held an office, like the presidency or a senator, and when one guy is through, another takes his place.. It has been that way for almost 2000 years in The Church....

kinda, but not really. that would imply there are only 12.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Rome has taught heresy. Rome has taught error.

---

Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Benny Hinn...

---

So Rome has good company? I'm not sure I understand the point?

This is why apostolic tradition is not tied to a specific group. Most of the heresy that Christianity has had to deal with started within the Christian church. Not outside of it.

Quote:

---

This sounds like "and", not "alone"

---

Reminder that this thread was not started by a Protestant, but a Roman Catholic. The protestants on this thread have been consistent that there's an overuse/emphasis on the "solas" by Rome.

It's not my position, nor the Reformers position that we through out tradition. We just rightly understand it's role.

Quote:

---

So does the opposing group. How do we settle that?

---

The way every group has ever resolved it.

Again, I'll remind you. The Israelites did not need an infallible decider. The Jews did not need an infallible decider. The EO don't specifically have an infallible decider. It's only Rome that believes, against all historical precedent, that an infallible decider is necessary. That's what you're avoiding. Why is Rome the outlier?

So you ask the wrong question. The correct question is "Why did Rome feel it needed an infallible decider when the historic tradition did not include one?"

That is what gets missed in these conversations. Rome is the historical outlier.

Quote:

---

How do you know? Your group interprets the bible one way, and Rome another.

---

Because even Rome admits it taught heresy at times.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Rome has taught heresy. Rome has taught error.

---

Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Benny Hinn...

---

So Rome has good company? I'm not sure I understand the point?

This is why apostolic tradition is not tied to a specific group. Most of the heresy that Christianity has had to deal with started within the Christian church. Not outside of it.

---

You know this is not an honest argument to even attempt to make.

It's anti-Christian, anti-Church drivel. You sound like an atheist.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Rome has taught heresy. Rome has taught error.

---

Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Benny Hinn...

---

So Rome has good company? I'm not sure I understand the point?

This is why apostolic tradition is not tied to a specific group. Most of the heresy that Christianity has had to deal with started within the Christian church. Not outside of it.

---

You know this is not an honest argument to even attempt to make.

It's anti-Christian, anti-Church drivel. You sound like an atheist.

---

Lol

KingofHazor said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Rome has taught heresy. Rome has taught error.

---

Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Benny Hinn...

---

So Rome has good company? I'm not sure I understand the point?

This is why apostolic tradition is not tied to a specific group. Most of the heresy that Christianity has had to deal with started within the Christian church. Not outside of it.

---

You know this is not an honest argument to even attempt to make.

It's anti-Christian, anti-Church drivel. You sound like an atheist.

---

Lol

---

Yeah!! I told them. Glad you liked it.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The protestants on this thread have been consistent that there's an overuse/emphasis on the "solas" by Rome.

---

I've granted your view of "sola". Scripture is the only infallible authority, not the only authority for you

Quote:

---

The way every group has ever resolved it.

---

What groups have resolved what? The only doctrinal resolutions I'm aware of are a few Eastern Churches coming back into union with Rome. But even that proves nothing, since according to you, they are teaching heresy. You're infallibly claiming something using your own fallible human abilities. Why should we trust that judgement? Or Luther's?

Quote:

---

The Israelites did not need an infallible decider. The Jews did not need an infallible decider

---

What does this have to do with anything? Did God promise to the Jewish high priests that He would lead their church into all truth as Jesus did with the apostles in John 16? Or that everything they bind on earth will be bound in Heaven? There are parallels in the OT and NT, but nowhere is it stated there always has to be a perfect 1:1 conversion

Quote:

---

The EO don't specifically have an infallible decider

---

This is not true. They have their councils and their tradition that they believe can teach infallibly, just like us. We see it right that in Acts 15. They don't believe the Church's ability to do that went away. The Catholics are more systematic about it, but we're not the only ones claiming infallible teaching authority

Quote:

---

Because even Rome admits it taught heresy at times.

---

This is incredibly false. The Catholic Church admits there have been heretics in the Church (have since it's inception), but nowhere has the Church said it magisterially taught heresy.

The problem with sola scriptura isn't the bible; rather, it is the personal interpretation of the bible used by thousands of protestants to come up with a doctrine that suits their personal beliefs, instead of what the scripture actually means. Personal interpretation of scripture is expressly forbidden by the bible itself in 2 Peter 1:20, which is totally ignored by protestants...

Did all of the fathers not in some way interpret themselves also? Or were they perfectly handed down the correct interpretation all the way down from the apostles?

Thaddeus73 said:

---

The problem with sola scriptura isn't the bible; rather, it is the personal interpretation of the bible used by thousands of protestants to come up with a doctrine that suits their personal beliefs, instead of what the scripture actually means. Personal interpretation of scripture is expressly forbidden by the bible itself in 2 Peter 1:20, which is totally ignored by protestants...

---

Uhhh, it's Biblical interpretations like that, which stretch the meaning of a verse far beyond the bounds of any possible plain interpretation, that almost drove me away from Christianity altogether. People start with their conclusion and then hammer verses relentlessly to force them to support their conclusion.

Is that an "official" RCC interpretation of that verse?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Did all of the fathers not in some way interpret themselves also? Or were they perfectly handed down the correct interpretation all the way down from the apostles?

---

Private interpretation was and still is allowed on matters not defined formally by the Church. Those fathers were ordained priest and bishops with the Christ given authority that goes along with it. We would say that the way the Holy Spirit moves the Church into all truth is through line of bishops prayerfully working these things out. By reading the fathers, you're getting to witness a part of that process