Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[GDL]

I lived in objective error, and I have taken the log out of my eye, as scripture directs. I can now see clearly. I agree that it is interesting, but also humbling as I looked at all the wasted years of living in error. I cannot make you see, only the Holy Spirit of God can do that.

You took the log out by going to Rome? Hopefully you're not saying the Holy Spirit making someone in Christ see is when the Spirit leads us all to Rome.

What I can do is tell you that my life with contraception produced no good fruit, only pain and misery under the delusion of pleasure. I was Protestant and believed all the faith alone stuff. It was just a slogan, as sin would continue to easily beset me. I bought into the gold covered dung analogy and thought that I would never be free in this life. It is not true, as it leaves many in their sins and saves no one.

That's what contraception is for - to prevent conception and fruit. I can't speak to your mental / emotional matters and delusions of pleasure.

I'm not sure what you mean by gold covered dung, but it sounds like you received some very bad teaching and maybe that's what bound you. It does sound like you had quite a guilt issue. Maybe your removing of the sexual covering is metaphorical for you.

I could just as easily tell you that I left the [misapplied] faith alone stuff as I studied the Word in Christ in Spirit and did not begin or end up in Rome.

It was when I submitted to the authority of the Apostles in the Church founded on Peter that the sin that so easily beset me was gone. I did not even think it would happen, but it was as if I had truly been born again. Jesus breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins. The sacrament of confession cleansed me. It was not of my own, but the grace of God flowed through the sacrament. His holy Eucharist nourishes me and decreases my desire for sin.

Some of us would say that this sounds like hook, line and sinker.

It is no longer I that liveth, but Christ liveth in me. I am humbled by His mercy as well as saddened and appalled at my former self.

But some of us know this from His Word, and it didn't take Rome to teach this to us. We also know that Rome is not the one who hands out His Spirit. As long as you get Truth like the first sentence above, some of us would note that it's the Truth that set you free - just like His Word says - and now you associate all Truth with Rome. Others know He is the Truth and that Rome and all are to be checked with His Word.

I saw that it was not faith alone that showed me I was born again, but as Paul describes in 1Cor13, when I repented, I received Faith, Hope, and Charity. They are the three theological virtues that come from God alone. Faith to know that God is and He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him. Hope that he fulfills His promises and cleanses us from sin if we ask Him as He says in Revelation 3:20, and Charity so that I can love God with all my heart and forever seek ways to please Him. We please Him by obeying His commandments. It’s not in some fantasy future heaven when we will live without sin, but now is the day of salvation. We pray Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. It is not His will for us to remain in sin to be cleansed later, but now, just ask Him. He is mighty to save and will deliver anyone that asks.

As I said above, it sounds like you got some very bad teaching earlier. Maybe you'll note that what you realized is from His Word which is readily available to all of us apart from Rome.

I don’t care if anyone thinks I am deluded or doesn’t believe me. I know what I was and how He has delivered me. But for the Catholic Church, I would not have known that I was in sin and needed to repent. God bless our holy father and the magisterium, for they guard the faith once delivered to the saints.

I for one have no reason to doubt what you feel. What you feel you feel. I'm simply noting that much of what you now realize is from Scripture which you now associate only or mainly with Rome. But the more we delve into Scripture, those outside of Rome will point out what Rome has wrong and will explain why (your next to last clause included). Some will see the futility and just let you soldier on.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You took the log out by going to Rome? Hopefully you're not saying the Holy Spirit making someone in Christ see is when the Spirit leads us all to Rome.

That's what contraception is for - to prevent conception and fruit. I can't speak to your mental / emotional matters and delusions of pleasure.

I'm not sure what you mean by gold covered dung, but it sounds like you received some very bad teaching and maybe that's what bound you. It does sound like you had quite a guilt issue. Maybe your removing of the sexual covering is metaphorical for you.

I could just as easily tell you that I left the [misapplied] faith alone stuff as I studied the Word in Christ in Spirit and did not begin or end up in Rome.

Some of us would say that this sounds like hook, line and sinker.

But some of us know this from His Word, and it didn't take Rome to teach this to us. We also know that Rome is not the one who hands out His Spirit. As long as you get Truth like the first sentence above, some of us would note that it's the Truth that set you free - just like His Word says - and now you associate all Truth with Rome. Others know He is the Truth and that Rome and all are to be checked with His Word.

As I said above, it sounds like you got some very bad teaching earlier. Maybe you'll note that what you realized is from His Word which is readily available to all of us apart from Rome.

I for one have no reason to doubt what you feel. What you feel you feel. I'm simply noting that much of what you now realize is from Scripture which you now associate only or mainly with Rome. But the more we delve into Scripture, those outside of Rome will point out what Rome has wrong and will explain why (your next to last clause included). Some will see the futility and just let you soldier on.

Well, Peter and Paul the Apostles went to Rome and founded the Church as Christ commanded. Their words were canonized into scripture and we have them today.
You think that Rome is wrong, but fail to point out errors in Catholic teaching, because there are none. It is the faith once delivered to the saints.
Don’t believe it? Then you haven’t studied enough or refuse to see. There is 2000 years of Church history. Although not scripture as you say, there have been many saints that have gone before us, and we can learn from all of them
To claim that we are modern and know more is arrogance. That is not a Christian virtue. The primary Christian virtue is humility which Our Lord displayed and Our Lady reflected perfectly

 

[GDL]

Well, Peter and Paul the Apostles went to Rome and founded the Church as Christ commanded. Their words were canonized into scripture and we have them today.

That's part of the tradition. But other Churches in other areas were founded as well and the Church is not just Rome. Some of us do appreciate the Canon more so than others.

You think that Rome is wrong, but fail to point out errors in Catholic teaching, because there are none. It is the faith once delivered to the saints.

I think you and I began with you misapplying a Scripture. If you'd like to discuss those Scriptures, maybe we could begin there with what you say is my failure. If in response to you I point out what such Scripture does and doesn't say, and you get your interpretation from Rome, then I and/or others have pointed out to you what we see as Rome's error. But you won't accept it because Rome tells you that you cannot. Also, the Scriptural battles between Rome and other denominations is extremely lengthy and well-documented. We could just as easily post some links to ignore.

Don’t believe it? Then you haven’t studied enough or refuse to see. There is 2000 years of Church history. Although not scripture as you say, there have been many saints that have gone before us, and we can learn from all of them

No. I've already made it clear that I don't rely on Rome for teaching Scripture. Within the history of the real Church, there is much more available to read than simply the ECF or Roman doctrine. This much more includes the Scripture.

To claim that we are modern and know more is arrogance. That is not a Christian virtue. The primary Christian virtue is humility which Our Lord displayed and Our Lady reflected perfectly

It really doesn't have much to do with any claim of being modern. It has to do with relying on Scripture vs. Roman tradition and being told by Rome what Scripture means. Scripture is older than Rome.

 

[zippy2006]

I looked back at post #1 and see that the discussion about m@sturbation is irrelevant to the original theme of the thread.

I wrote the thread. Your fixation on masturbation is somewhat off-topic, but the reason I did not report it as such is because it is tied into the Sola Scriptura question. This is because you have claimed that according to Sola Scriptura masturbation is clearly not a sin. In any case, it is clear at this point that you are unwilling to defend your thesis.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

That's part of the tradition. But other Churches in other areas were founded as well and the Church is not just Rome. Some of us do appreciate the Canon more so than others.

I think you and I began with you misapplying a Scripture. If you'd like to discuss those Scriptures, maybe we could begin there with what you say is my failure. If in response to you I point out what such Scripture does and doesn't say, and you get your interpretation from Rome, then I and/or others have pointed out to you what we see as Rome's error. But you won't accept it because Rome tells you that you cannot. Also, the Scriptural battles between Rome and other denominations is extremely lengthy and well-documented. We could just as easily post some links to ignore.

No. I've already made it clear that I don't rely on Rome for teaching Scripture. Within the history of the real Church, there is much more available to read than simply the ECF or Roman doctrine. This much more includes the Scripture.

It really doesn't have much to do with any claim of being modern. It has to do with relying on Scripture vs. Roman tradition and being told by Rome what Scripture means. Scripture is older than Rome.

If you are so sure of yourself, why do you continue to post in vague generalities and not offer any substance ?
Granted you the Old Testament is older than the Catholic Church, but the New Testament was collected reviewed and canonized by the Catholic Church because she is the Church of the New Testament. Even with the Old Testament there is no clear understanding among Protestants of which books make up the Old Teatament or which is the proper translation.
Which doctrines of the Catholic Magisterium do you claim to be in error? We don’t just claim to read early church fathers but all of Christian history
It is not a question of how I feel, but what God’s grace has done to me. I was in sin, now I am not by what God’s grace has done for me because I humbled myself in obedience to His Church.
For 1500 years the Church taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It was the Swiss Zwingli, heavily influenced by humanism, that changed the doctrines of the Sacraments to symbols. Jesus is still there in the flesh, with all of His mercy to extend to anyone that wishes to repent. Just ask Him.
Why wait for eternity to supposedly be cleansed from sin, when you can be free now?

I admit that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. It is easier to take a low view of sin and believe that because you have mouthed the word Jesus, you need not continue to strive to make your calling and election sure.
This is untrue as the teaching on the symbolism of Jesus. Jesus is not fantasy nor a phantom to be conjured by our faith. He is real as is his flesh and blood. He said my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink For 1500 years the Church taught that, and now some think to call the error because some humanist from the 1500s said it is symbolism? Does not 1John4 tell us that any spirit that does not confess Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God? Not had come in the flesh in the ancient past but is come now.
I did not want it to be true, I believed what Calvin, Wesley, Spurgeon, Sprole, Zwingli, Tyndale and others had said, but when I read the scriptures I don’t see that what they say is true

 

[GDL]

I recently watched a debate on Sola Scriptura, which admittedly wasn't very good. That said, the argument Jimmy Akin gave is succinct and incisive:

P1. Sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must be derivable from Scripture.​

P2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.​

C1. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be derivable from Scripture.​

P3. But Sola Scriptura is not derivable from Scripture.​

C2. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and hence false.​

What do you think?

For those who defend Sola Scriptura, which of the three premises of the argument would you attack and why?

I would really like for this to be a thread about this particular argument, so I will redirect or ignore responses that do not address it. That said, inevitably users will post other arguments for or against Sola Scriptura and derail the thread until the cows come home. Oh well!

P3 based upon the appeal to Scripture by Jesus and His Apostles to deal with arguments or to base instruction upon.

 

[GDL]

If you are so sure of yourself, why do you continue to post in vague generalities and not offer any substance ?
Granted you the Old Testament is older than the Catholic Church, but the New Testament was collected reviewed and canonized by the Catholic Church because she is the Church of the New Testament. Even with the Old Testament there is no clear understanding among Protestants of which books make up the Old Teatament or which is the proper translation.
Which doctrines of the Catholic Magisterium do you claim to be in error? We don’t just claim to read early church fathers but all of Christian history
It is not a question of how I feel, but what God’s grace has done to me. I was in sin, now I am not by what God’s grace has done for me because I humbled myself in obedience to His Church.
For 1500 years the Church taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It was the Swiss Zwingli, heavily influenced by humanism, that changed the doctrines of the Sacraments to symbols. Jesus is still there in the flesh, with all of His mercy to extend to anyone that wishes to repent. Just ask Him.
Why wait for eternity to supposedly be cleansed from sin, when you can be free now?

I admit that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. It is easier to take a low view of sin and believe that because you have mouthed the word Jesus, you need not continue to strive to make your calling and election sure.
This is untrue as the teaching on the symbolism of Jesus. Jesus is not fantasy nor a phantom to be conjured by our faith. He is real as is his flesh and blood. He said my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink For 1500 years the Church taught that, and now some think to call the error because some humanist from the 1500s said it is symbolism? Does not 1John4 tell us that any spirit that does not confess Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God? Not had come in the flesh in the ancient past but is come now.
I did not want it to be true, I believed what Calvin, Wesley, Spurgeon, Sprole, Zwingli, Tyndale and others had said, but when I read the scriptures I don’t see that what they say is true

And you're not offering generalities based upon theories Rome compiled about itself? You claim to read all of Christian history - does this include all the work that's been done to point out from Scripture what others see as the errors of Rome?

You speak as if there is no understanding outside of Rome of sin and what Christ has done for us. I'm troubled you received some gold covered dung teaching somewhere, but that does not mean the rest of us have.

It's difficult to read through your thinking and find anything to jump into. But here's one:

• NKJ 1 John 4:2-3 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
• FWIW, "has come" is a Greek perfect tense which speaks of a past event that has current implications at the time of writing. FWIW again - even though I will hold no credibility to you, my being apart from Rome - I agree with the focus on the past event as is being translated in this NKJ translation. John wrote about Jesus ascending to Heaven to be with our Father (not your RC holy father) and he wrote about the past experience he and others had with Jesus on earth (1John context). John is saying nothing about Jesus being there in flesh and blood as he writes. To turn this 1 John4:2-3 into "is come now" to fit the RC eucharist is more than a stretch and the type of thing those not of Rome will point out.

There's really no point of going further into the discussion of metaphor and symbolism concerning the eucharist and how Jesus says His words are spirit and life (John6:63) and how He spoke of His being the real bread of life while speaking of manna in the wilderness (John6:48-51). It's just another area of Scripture where a Rome advocate will not be swayed from Rome by Scripture.

You haven't gone back to the Scriptures where I chimed in, so thank you for your time. We both know this discussion can only go further downhill from here.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I wrote the thread. Your fixation on masturbation is somewhat off-topic, but the reason I did not report it as such is because it is tied into the Sola Scriptura question. This is because you have claimed that according to Sola Scriptura masturbation is clearly not a sin. In any case, it is clear at this point that you are unwilling to defend your thesis.

I believe the chief difficulty with this particular issue is the complete silence of the Bible on it. I would compare it with umbrellas, which were a very hot topic in Puritan theological arguments. Is it right for a Christian to employ an umbrella to prevent God's rain, which He sends upon the just and the unjust alike, from falling on him? What saith the Lord? Nothing, really.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

And you're not offering generalities based upon theories Rome compiled about itself? You claim to read all of Christian history - does this include all the work that's been done to point out from Scripture what others see as the errors of Rome?

You speak as if there is no understanding outside of Rome of sin and what Christ has done for us. I'm troubled you received some gold covered dung teaching somewhere, but that does not mean the rest of us have.

It's difficult to read through your thinking and find anything to jump into. But here's one:

• NKJ 1 John 4:2-3 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
• FWIW, "has come" is a Greek perfect tense which speaks of a past event that has current implications at the time of writing. FWIW again - even though I will hold no credibility to you, my being apart from Rome - I agree with the focus on the past event as is being translated in this NKJ translation. John wrote about Jesus ascending to Heaven to be with our Father (not your RC holy father) and he wrote about the past experience he and others had with Jesus on earth (1John context). John is saying nothing about Jesus being there in flesh and blood as he writes. To turn this 1 John4:2-3 into "is come now" to fit the RC eucharist is more than a stretch and the type of thing those not of Rome will point out.

There's really no point of going further into the discussion of metaphor and symbolism concerning the eucharist and how Jesus says His words are spirit and life (John6:63) and how He spoke of His being the real bread of life while speaking of manna in the wilderness (John6:48-51). It's just another area of Scripture where a Rome advocate will not be swayed from Rome by Scripture.

You haven't gone back to the Scriptures where I chimed in, so thank you for your time. We both know this discussion can only go further downhill from here.

It can only go down hill if you want it to.
Have you considered Matthew 28:20? I will be with you always, even until the end or the world?
How can this be if He has come as a past event, and it is only the Holy Spirit that is here and not Jesus in the flesh? And what of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus right after the resurrection? They had all the scriptures at their disposal, but they did not understand until He opened them for them, and they did not recognize Him until the breaking of bread, which is the Eucharist? Breaking of bread is an unusual event to mention at this point in the story had it no significance. It would be like saying and he put the napkin to his mouth and they recognized Him. It happens at every meal and is hardly worth mentioning, had not the Lord commanded it and said this IS my body. He is here until the end of the age in the species of bread and wine as He told us, the apostles obeyed and the Church believed for 1500 years. Why was it necessary to change?

Have you read Zwingli? His humanism argument was the reason to change the sacraments to symbols, not scripture.

You think I am hard to pin down? that need not be the case. The catechism of the Catholic Church is a published work and is accessible online. It contains the faith and once delivered to the saints. If I have said anything contrary to it, then I repent as will correct my error. If you see something wrong in it, I would hope that you point it out

 

[concretecamper]

I have a Catholic friend whose priest finally told him not to bother him with perpetual confessions of this sin

I doubt that this is a true story

 

[bbbbbbb]

I doubt that this is a true story

You are entitled to your doubts. I only regret that I cannot introduce you personally to my friend. He is in a small rural parish in Wisconsin and the various priests that have served in his parish have held some markedly curious views as, for example, the doctrine of Purgatory, which caused some of the parishioners to make a personal trip to the bishop at the other end of the state to request his transfer. He was duly transferred to another rural parish where, I suppose, he was viewed as having the least impact with his decidedly curious theological views.

 

[GDL]

It can only go down hill if you want it to.
Have you considered Matthew 28:20? I will be with you always, even until the end or the world?
How can this be if He has come as a past event, and it is only the Holy Spirit that is here and not Jesus in the flesh? And what of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus right after the resurrection? They had all the scriptures at their disposal, but they did not understand until He opened them for them, and they did not recognize Him until the breaking of bread, which is the Eucharist? Breaking of bread is an unusual event to mention at this point in the story had it no significance. It would be like saying and he put the napkin to his mouth and they recognized Him. It happens at every meal and is hardly worth mentioning, had not the Lord commanded it and said this IS my body. He is here until the end of the age in the species of bread and wine as He told us, the apostles obeyed and the Church believed for 1500 years. Why was it necessary to change?

Have you read Zwingli? His humanism argument was the reason to change the sacraments to symbols, not scripture.

You think I am hard to pin down? that need not be the case. The catechism of the Catholic Church is a published work and is accessible online. It contains the faith and once delivered to the saints. If I have said anything contrary to it, then I repent as will correct my error. If you see something wrong in it, I would hope that you point it out

Honestly, I don't have any interest whatsoever in RC tradition. I've read enough and have studied Scripture intently enough over the years to have made my choice. If you'd like to present Scripture, I might respond after this and I might not. You won't sway me to RC and I don't have any thoughts of pulling you from your comfort.

In response to your question re: Matt28:20, have you considered John14:2-3; John20:17; Rom8:34 just to name a few? If you want to dream that you're drinking human blood and eating human flesh, please feel free to do so. Maybe you should also consider that Jesus always spoke as He did with purpose and intent. Note the offending effect His words had on people in John6:60-68. He spoke on the one hand to offend and clean out the unbelief and on the other hand to make the belief realize there's nowhere else to go no matter how tough things were going to sound or to be. His Words being spirit and life ought to tell us something. You're no more eating human flesh and drinking human blood than the Israelites were eating pieces of His human flesh in the wilderness.

It's fascinating how people have been made to believe RC is the Church when Scripture says we are His Church - and that you need to go to a RC priest who is the only one who can turn the bread and wine into blood and flesh when Scripture says no such thing and that we Christians are a Priesthood and a Temple - and that you need to go sit in a confessional when Scripture says we are to acknowledge to God directly our sins and from Him directly receive forgiveness and cleansing with the advocacy of Jesus Christ whom we can also approach in His Great High Priesthood any time we are in need (Heb4:16).

Make His Word (and thus His Spirit) secondary at best and there you go. Many of us see the farce because we have His Text. It's also fascinating how He used Rome to get us His Text so we could see Rome and see Him directly apart from Rome.

 

[zippy2006]

I believe the chief difficulty with this particular issue is the complete silence of the Bible on it. I would compare it with umbrellas, which were a very hot topic in Puritan theological arguments. Is it right for a Christian to employ an umbrella to prevent God's rain, which He sends upon the just and the unjust alike, from falling on him? What saith the Lord? Nothing, really.

It seems to me that the sinfulness of such an act is not directly addressed by Scripture, but is inferentially knowable via Scripture, and the unanimous testimony in Judaism and Christianity for the vast majority of their existence attests to this fact. Jews and Christians have always held masturbation to be sinful. Not so with umbrellas.

But this is my last post on this particular sub-topic.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It seems to me that the sinfulness of such an act is not directly addressed by Scripture, but is inferentially knowable via Scripture, and the unanimous testimony in Judaism and Christianity for the vast majority of their existence attests to this fact. Jews and Christians have always held masturbation to be sinful. Not so with umbrellas.

But this is my last post on this particular sub-topic.

I understand your position, but maintain that this issue, as well as innumerable other issues which have no support in the Bible, are irrelevant to the topic of this thread - sola scriptura.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Honestly, I don't have any interest whatsoever in RC tradition. I've read enough and have studied Scripture intently enough over the years to have made my choice. If you'd like to present Scripture, I might respond after this and I might not. You won't sway me to RC and I don't have any thoughts of pulling you from your comfort.

In response to your question re: Matt28:20, have you considered John14:2-3; John20:17; Rom8:34 just to name a few? If you want to dream that you're drinking human blood and eating human flesh, please feel free to do so. Maybe you should also consider that Jesus always spoke as He did with purpose and intent. Note the offending effect His words had on people in John6:60-68. He spoke on the one hand to offend and clean out the unbelief and on the other hand to make the belief realize there's nowhere else to go no matter how tough things were going to sound or to be. His Words being spirit and life ought to tell us something. You're no more eating human flesh and drinking human blood than the Israelites were eating pieces of His human flesh in the wilderness.

It's fascinating how people have been made to believe RC is the Church when Scripture says we are His Church - and that you need to go to a RC priest who is the only one who can turn the bread and wine into blood and flesh when Scripture says no such thing and that we Christians are a Priesthood and a Temple - and that you need to go sit in a confessional when Scripture says we are to acknowledge to God directly our sins and from Him directly receive forgiveness and cleansing with the advocacy of Jesus Christ whom we can also approach in His Great High Priesthood any time we are in need (Heb4:16).

Make His Word (and thus His Spirit) secondary at best and there you go. Many of us see the farce because we have His Text. It's also fascinating how He used Rome to get us His Text so we could see Rome and see Him directly apart from Rome.

Is that your position? That God used a group that was not his Church to compile His text to reveal it to His church 1500 years after Pentecost?
The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ whether I imagine it to be or not. God said let there be light and there was light. Christ says this is my body and it is. No where in scripture does it say that it is just symbolic, and it was not taught so until the sixteenth century by Zwingli. If what you say is true, why was it not known sooner?
Even Paul says that if we eat and drink in an unworthy manner, we bring condemnation on ourselves not discerning the Lord’s body. 1Cor11:29.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Is that your position? That God used a group that was not his Church to compile His text to reveal it to His church 1500 years after Pentecost?
The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ whether I imagine it to be or not. God said let there be light and there was light. Christ says this is my body and it is. No where in scripture does it say that it is just symbolic, and it was not taught so until the sixteenth century by Zwingli. If what you say is true, why was it not known sooner?
Even Paul says that if we eat and drink in an unworthy manner, we bring condemnation on ourselves not discerning the Lord’s body. 1Cor11:29.

Are you implying that the Eastern Orthodox churches are not "His Church"?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Are you implying that the Eastern Orthodox churches are not "His Church"?

The physical buildings and denominational structure is just man-designed, but they contain genuine believers in Christ, therefore the Eastern Orthodox churches have the true Church within them. The synthesis is so close, that if I decided to fellowship with other genuine believers in an Eastern Orthodox church, then I am fellowshipping in what I can confidently be assured that I am in a true church of Christ. In my view, to criticise any Christian church and say it is not a true church, is to criticise the believers who support and fellowship in it. Therefore, on that basis I can confidently say that the Eastern Orthodox is one of those that can identify as "His Church".

 

[concretecamper]

Are you implying that the Eastern Orthodox churches are not "His Church"?

What do your friends who are Faithful Catholics say about it?

 

[concretecamper]

The physical buildings and denominational structure is just man-designed, but they contain genuine believers in Christ, therefore the Eastern Orthodox churches have the true Church within them. The synthesis is so close, that if I decided to fellowship with other genuine believers in an Eastern Orthodox church, then I am fellowshipping in what I can confidently be assured that I am in a true church of Christ. In my view, to criticise any Christian church and say it is not a true church, is to criticise the believers who support and fellowship in it. Therefore, on that basis I can confidently say that the Eastern Orthodox is one of those that can identify as "His Church".

In the Nicene Creed, we profess One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. There is only One true Church. There is not one true Church divided up into many unique faiths. The is One faith, One Baptism.

And yes buildings are man made and denominational structure is certainly man made.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

In the Nicene Creed, we profess One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. There is only One true Church. There is not one true Church divided up into many unique faiths. The is One faith, One Baptism.

And yes buildings are man made and denominational structure is certainly man made.

It is not that the one holy catholic apostolic church is divided up into different faiths. There is one faith and one baptism for sure, but within every visible church denomination, there are those who are born again of the Spirit of God and therefore are members of that one church. The characteristic of those who are members of the one true church is that no matter what denomination that they are in, they are all in absolute unity about where they stand with Christ, that He died on the Cross to pay the full debt of sin and that when they stand before God in the Judgment, God will dismiss their case, because Jesus paid their penalty when He died on the Cross. In my long association with the Christian faith, I have fellowshipped in a number of different churches, Evangelical, Pentecostal and Charismatic, and I have found that all the genuine believers I have mixed with believe exactly the same in their commitment to Christ and His finished work on the Cross. What different denominations believe outside of that is merely cosmetic and characteristic of their own denomination and place in history.