Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[boughtwithaprice]

Repeating the same line about the speck in someone else's eye doesn't change anything.

Ignoring the point does not change anything either. If you wish to attack my flesh, go ahead, I am but dust and worthy of contempt.
What you cannot do successfully is ignore the plain commands of God. The Church cannot be in schism because Christ can never be divided.

Those that attempt to build a new Church actually do no such thing, they merely depart from her. As scripture says unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. There are no denominations, there is only the Church.

You make wild ascertains that it is established that the Church consists in denomination yet refuse to show the basis for it. You say “it has been established….” But do not say by who. You?

What would you do if you appear before the throne of Christ and He says I never knew you? Have you ever considered that possibility? A Christian does so, as self reflection marks humility

You believe that the Catholic Church is not the Church? Fine. The truth is not changed by your belief. You have access to the Catechism and 2000 years of history. It is your duty to prove the error, not ignore the point

As to your attack on me, I was in your exact position at one time in my life, and I first removed the log from my eyes and can see clearly

What you will find is that all of your so called denominations have changed Jesus teaching on sexual morality and no longer view it as important. They no longer teach the dangers of being unchaste. Even some Catholics don’t take it seriously, but our Lord said that if you even look on a woman with lust, you have committed adultery, and scripture says no adulterers will enter the kingdom of heaven. The catechism continues to teach the grave evil of contraception, as did all those that called themselves Christian for the first 1900 years until 1930

 

[Fervent]

Ignoring the point does not change anything either. If you wish to attack my flesh, go ahead, I am but dust and worthy of contempt.
What you cannot do successfully is ignore the plain commands of God. The Church cannot be in schism because Christ can never be divided.

Yet it would seem that the visible church is currently in schism, unless you propose that those who are outside of the Roman Catholic Church are not in fact members of Christ's body.

Those that attempt to build a new Church actually do no such thing, they merely depart from her. As scripture says unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. There are no denominations, there is only the Church.

Not recognizing attempted usurpers is not building a new church. Rome has chosen to ignore concillatory decrees it had agreed to in times past, instead elevating itself and attempting to lord it over the rest of the church.

You make wild ascertains that it is established that the Church consists in denomination yet refuse to show the basis for it. You say “it has been established….” But do not say by who. You?

Do you deny that there are Christians within every, or at least most, denominational bodies? And that there are non-Christians within every denominational body? Yet you claim that one of those denominational bodies is the true church. So it is you making wild claims.

What would you do if you appear before the throne of Christ and He says I never knew you? Have you ever considered that possibility? A Christian does so, as self reflection marks humility

What does this have to do with your claim that the Roman church is the true church?

You believe that the Catholic Church is not the Church? Fine. The truth is not changed by your belief. You have access to the Catechism and 2000 years of history. It is your duty to prove the error, not ignore the point

I believe it's obvious from a historical and simple observational standpoint that the Roman church is not the true body catholic. It is precisely because of my study of the 2000 years of history and the revisionist manner that Rome handles that history that has made me most convinced that Rome's claims for herself are simply not true.

As to your attack on me, I was in your exact position at one time in my life, and I first removed the log from my eyes and can see clearly

Attack on you? Hardly.

What you will find is that all of your so called denominations have changed Jesus teaching on sexual morality and no longer view it as important. They no longer teach the dangers of being unchaste. Even some Catholics don’t take it seriously, but our Lord said that if you even look on a woman with lust, you have committed adultery, and scripture says no adulterers will enter the kingdom of heaven. The catechism continues to teach the grave evil of contraception, as did all those that called themselves Christian for the first 1900 years until 1930

Your tirade here is completely irrelevant.

 

[fhansen]

Sure, but none of that requires a "true" church among the many denominations in which people come to know Christ.

That knowledge begins with head knowledge which is meant to move into the heart and become personal knowledge. Both are important. Either way, the more we know God's will the better and I see confusion over that understanding which causes division among us-sometimes to the point of causing people to doubt each other's status as God's children. It depends on how far back we decide to draw the line, as to what constitutes correct and sufficient knowledge.

Sure, a common legacy to all authentic expressions of Christianity. That legacy doesn't belong to a particular modern church, though, but is common to all who follow Christ. And in each of those instances, the church was not separated among those who say "I follow Peter" or "I follow John" or "I follow James," whereas the modern Roman church claims its authenticity comes because they purportedly follow Peter.

The common legacy was rejected by others at the time who also claimed to speak for God and His church. If their legacy had prevailed we might all be Arians now, for example. But somehow one group, with one faith, prevailed against the others.

It has nothing to do with following any particular person, but the church itself. Right now if Protestantism wished to resolve the difference between those who hold to double-predestination and those who don't, an important matter as it impacts on the nature of God, or to rule against the non-trinitarian beliefs of Oneness Pentecostalism, there's no way to do it, no leg to stand on, no central authority where the buck stops as all is egalitarian now when Christian truth-claims are really a matter of private opinion and interpretation at the end of the day. Who can speak for a universal Christian body of truths? We all believe in Jesus? Fine. Who is He and what does He want of us??

 

[Fervent]

That knowledge begins with head knowledge which is meant to move into the heart and become personal knowledge. Both are important. Either way, the more we know God's will the better and I see confusion over that understanding which causes division among us-sometimes to the point of causing people to doubt each other's status as God's children. It depends on how far back we decide to draw the line, as to what constitutes correct and sufficient knowledge.

That's not the order things worked for me, in fact it wasn't until I humbled myself and realized that I knew nothing that relational knowledge of God truly took root that I even had a foundation to build anything resembling head knowledge on.

The common legacy was rejected by others at the time who also claimed to speak for God and His church. If their legacy had prevailed we might all be Arians now, for example. But somehow one group, with one faith, prevailed against the others.

The common legacy hasn't been rejected, in fact what many reformer's seek to do is return the church to primitive teachings that it has departed from.

It has nothing to do with following any particular person, but the church itself. Right now if Protestantism wished to resolve the difference between those who hold to double-predestination and those who don't, an important matter as it impacts on the nature of God, or to rule against the non-trinitarian beliefs of Oneness Pentecostalism, there's no way to do it, no leg to stand on, no central authority where the buck stops as all is egalitarian now when Christian truth-claims are really a matter of private opinion and interpretation at the end of the day. Who can speak for a universal Christian body of truths? We all believe in Jesus? Fine. Who is He and what does He want of us??

It has everything to do with following a particular person, because the entire basis Rome claims to have authority from is its purported relationship with Peter. Of course it downplays important parts of history and outright ignores statements it agreed to in ecumenical councils regarding Antioch and Constantinople. There need not be a central authority when information is plentiful, ideas can be challenged with ideas and historical fact with historical fact. Central authority is nearly always a recipe for abuse, as can be seen from the history of institutional churches.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Your tirade here is completely irrelevant.

Hmmm. Let’s look at what you have said

You say you have studied the last 2000 years of history and proclaimed that the Apostolic Church headed by the Pope in Rome is not the true Church. You once said it was a denomination of the true Church. Do you now say it is a false church?

I brought up a very salient point of Christian doctrine that was abandoned by the groups no longer in fellowship with Rome, and you say it is irrelevant. Is it your contention the Jesus words, whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart are irrelevant? Do you contend that sexual purity does not matter if one takes the name of Jesus?

You say that central authority leads to abuse. This implies that Christians should reject central authority, but what are the fruits of that teaching? Has the faith become more relevant? Has revival and repentance come to the world? If you are honest, you can see that it is not true. We also see that the word of God is blasphemed among the gentiles because authority has been rejected

The atheists mock Christians to scorn by saying the faith is no different that believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodley appendage. George Carlin showed us buddy Christ. The scoundrels rip off little old ladies with false promises of the prosperity gospel and false faith healings. The guilt of sin has been eliminated by the no works gospel, but you really have to feel guilty if you don’t pay a tithe to support the fantasy. Do you really think that lack of authority has resulted in good?

Yes there are scoundrels in the Catholic Church as well, but we have the Catechism which shows us the faith once delivered to the saints, and it is not corrupted. We also maintain the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Jesus, which continues to nourish the faithful since the time of the Apostles. Satan has tried to destroy the Chuch for the last 2000 years and has not succeeded, nor will he.
The Protestant groups have no way of dealing with false gospels as there is no authority. Well they talk a good talk from the Bible, so we can’t judge them. That is not the way to live. The Bible says not to judge people, but be ever watchful for false teaching. It says test the spirits to see whether they are from God. Scripture very clearly tells us not to put up with false doctrine. Doctrine can be judged by authority, what cannot be judged is people because we do not know whether they will ever repent and receive God’s grace for salvation.

You say you want to get back to primitive teachings that have been abandoned. I could see that sentiment, but what are the teachings that have been abandoned ?

I see self denial has been abandoned, Jesus says if anyone come after me, let him first deny himself take up his cross and follow me.
Protestants say that is done by merely saying Jesus name, but scripture says to mortify the deeds of the flesh and pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Scripture tells us to fly (medieval word that means emphatically flee) fornication, but Protestants say you can’t help yourself so contraception is ok.
Protestants say a long as you pay 10%, you can accumulate as much money as you want. If you use contraception, you can have as much sex as you want. Lead more people to the Lord, aka add more members to your church and you can have the pride of being a big wheel in the congregation. Don’t worry about pursuing virtues, works don’t help your salvation. Is that the primitive teaching that you want to get back to? Is that your primitive Christian? A greedy, fornicating, well liked man that is a joy to be around because he makes you feel good?
I hope not

Jesus says beware when they all speak well of you, they said the same about the false prophets.
What is your primitive teaching that you want brought back?

 

[Fervent]

Hmmm. Let’s look at what you have said

You say you have studied the last 2000 years of history and proclaimed that the Apostolic Church headed by the Pope in Rome is not the true Church. You once said it was a denomination of the true Church. Do you now say it is a false church?

No, I maintain that it is like every other mainstream denomination of the church. That it is a faction and a mixed body.

I brought up a very salient point of Christian doctrine that was abandoned by the groups no longer in fellowship with Rome, and you say it is irrelevant. Is it your contention the Jesus words, whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart are irrelevant? Do you contend that sexual purity does not matter if one takes the name of Jesus?

Your screed is simply not relevant to the conversation, especially considering the sexual misconduct of clergy and other examples of flagrant sexual impurity among Catholics.

You say that central authority leads to abuse. This implies that Christians should reject central authority, but what are the fruits of that teaching? Has the faith become more relevant? Has revival and repentance come to the world? If you are honest, you can see that it is not true. We also see that the word of God is blasphemed among the gentiles because authority has been rejected

God is not blasphemed, at least not anymore than He is blasphemed by men wielding the structures of the church in order to play out their political aspirations and impose sanctions(including the death penalty) on those who don't place them on a pedestal.

The atheists mock Christians to scorn by saying the faith is no different that believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodley appendage. George Carlin showed us buddy Christ. The scoundrels rip off little old ladies with false promises of the prosperity gospel and false faith healings. The guilt of sin has been eliminated by the no works gospel, but you really have to feel guilty if you don’t pay a tithe to support the fantasy. Do you really think that lack of authority has resulted in good?

The foolish will behave foolishly, I'm far more disturbed when "holy" men murder their critics in the name of the church than I am the existence of vocal critics.

Yes there are scoundrels in the Catholic Church as well, but we have the Catechism which shows us the faith once delivered to the saints, and it is not corrupted. We also maintain the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Jesus, which continues to nourish the faithful since the time of the Apostles. Satan has tried to destroy the Chuch for the last 2000 years and has not succeeded, nor will he.

Satan allied with the institutional church far more often than he has tried to destroy it. He promised the clergy kingdoms, and they obliged.

The Protestant groups have no way of dealing with false gospels as there is no authority. Well they talk a good talk from the Bible, so we can’t judge them. That is not the way to live. The Bible says not to judge people, but be ever watchful for false teaching. It says test the spirits to see whether they are from God. Scripture very clearly tells us not to put up with false doctrine. Doctrine can be judged by authority, what cannot be judged is people because we do not know whether they will ever repent and receive God’s grace for salvation.

Authority is not necessary to "deal with false gospels." All it takes is the promotion of the true gospel, and those false gospels will expose themselves. When you've got diamonds, you don't need to be threatened by cubic zirconia.

You say you want to get back to primitive teachings that have been abandoned. I could see that sentiment, but what are the teachings that have been abandoned ?

One of the major aspects of the Apostolic teaching that was abandoned is the apocalypticism that permeates Jesus' teaching and the NT writings. It's kind of hard to maintain a worldview that teaches the world is under the thumb of an evil tyrant when you're married to the power of the state.

I see self denial has been abandoned, Jesus says if anyone come after me, let him first deny himself take up his cross and follow me.
Protestants say that is done by merely saying Jesus name, but scripture says to mortify the deeds of the flesh and pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Scripture tells us to fly (medieval word that means emphatically flee) fornication, but Protestants say you can’t help yourself so contraception is ok.

You really are obsessed with controlling the sex lives of others, aren't you?

Protestants say a long as you pay 10%, you can accumulate as much money as you want. If you use contraception, you can have as much sex as you want. Lead more people to the Lord, aka add more members to your church and you can have the pride of being a big wheel in the congregation. Don’t worry about pursuing virtues, works don’t help your salvation. Is that the primitive teaching that you want to get back to? Is that your primitive Christian? A greedy, fornicating, well liked man that is a joy to be around because he makes you feel good?
I hope not

Protestantism is not a monolith, so to claim "protestants say" and then speak of what some group's teachings you've decided to take issue with doesn't really say much of anything. Even if you are correct, there are protestant groups who don't teach what you claim protestants teach.

Jesus says beware when they all speak well of you, they said the same about the false prophets.
What is your primitive teaching that you want brought back?

Where do I begin?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Where do I begin?

At the beginning.

It used to be that the Church was the conscience of the state. Kings and queens were coronated by bishops and respected the Pope.

It was Luther that argued for separation of Church and state, and the state used propaganda to further the agenda.

They called the previous way the Dark Ages, and their new way the Enlightenment. Ironically appropriately named as Lucifer is an Angel of light. After Luther rebelled, then Henry the VIII thought he would have a go and declare himself head of the church of England. He threatened the bishops with execution if they did not comply and all did except St Thomas Moore who was beheaded. It was a group founded on pride, lust, greed of one man. Did it maintain Christian teaching? No, in 1930, it reversed 1900 years of teaching at the Lambeth conference, when it voted to allow contraception. The result of which is the rampant amorality we see today.

You say I am obsessed with sexual behavior, In could not care less what others do? just show you what happens when people ignore God. Paul says in Romans that when we abandon the natural use of the woman, God abandons us to lust. Jesus says that if you look on a woman with lust, you commit adultery.

Two questions need to be asked that I don’t see addressed by modern preachers. They are How then should I look on a woman, and What is the natural use of the woman?

The answer is children. A woman is not a sex toy, she is a wife, mother, sister, daughter. She is not to be looked at as an object of lust. That is not the natural use of the woman. Want to see what contraception does to a man? Take a look at pictures of men before contraception and what they look like today. Today’s man has been emasculated and thinks he only has value if a woman wants to have sex with him. It’s disgusting. The concept is taught in the book of Tobit, but Protestants won’t read that because it’s apocrypha.

As an aside the apocryphal books were called deuterocanon and were included in the Septuagint from which Christ quoted. They were removed by Jewish scholars after Resurrection probably because they were too Christian, and Luther decided to leave them out as they did not suit his agenda.

What are other results of the so called enlightenment? In France we had the revolution that resulted in the reign of terror and mass beheadings and huge persecution of Catholics in the Vendee. In a Russia we had Lenin and the Bolsheviks which resulted in mass starvation in Ukraine and millions of deaths is the gulags
We also had two world wars and communist revolutions that resulted in death on a scale not seen in the history of man.
It was not the Church that caused that, but those in the Church that failed in their duties.
The Catechism is against the evils of communism, but there are some men that have aligned with communists and “left wing” politics
It does not make communism right or the Church wrong. It just shows evil men have entered and good men need to stand up and say no. I don’t think right wing politics is the greatest answer either In the United States we have over 65,000,000 dead from abortion on the operating room floor. It may as well be a temple of Molech.

Great times this separation of church and state gives us. The state can corrupt when left unbridled which it has been, since Luther made the argument.

 

[Fervent]

At the beginning.

It used to be that the Church was the conscience of the state. Kings and queens were coronated by bishops and respected the Pope.

It was Luther that argued for separation of Church and state, and the state used propaganda to further the agenda.

They called the previous way the Dark Ages, and their new way the Enlightenment. Ironically appropriately named as Lucifer is an Angel of light. After Luther rebelled, then Henry the VIII thought he would have a go and declare himself head of the church of England. He threatened the bishops with execution if they did not comply and all did except St Thomas Moore who was beheaded. It was a group founded on pride, lust, greed of one man. Did it maintain Christian teaching? No, in 1930, it reversed 1900 years of teaching at the Lambeth conference, when it voted to allow contraception. The result of which is the rampant amorality we see today.

You say I am obsessed with sexual behavior, In could not care less what others do? just show you what happens when people ignore God. Paul says in Romans that when we abandon the natural use of the woman, God abandons us to lust. Jesus says that if you look on a woman with lust, you commit adultery.

Two questions need to be asked that I don’t see addressed by modern preachers. They are How then should I look on a woman, and What is the natural use of the woman?

The answer is children. A woman is not a sex toy, she is a wife, mother, sister, daughter. She is not to be looked at as an object of lust. That is not the natural use of the woman. Want to see what contraception does to a man? Take a look at pictures of men before contraception and what they look like today. Today’s man has been emasculated and thinks he only has value if a woman wants to have sex with him. It’s disgusting. The concept is taught in the book of Tobit, but Protestants won’t read that because it’s apocrypha.

As an aside the apocryphal books were called deuterocanon and were included in the Septuagint from which Christ quoted. They were removed by Jewish scholars after Resurrection probably because they were too Christian, and Luther decided to leave them out as they did not suit his agenda.

What are other results of the so called enlightenment? In France we had the revolution that resulted in the reign of terror and mass beheadings and huge persecution of Catholics in the Vendee. In a Russia we had Lenin and the Bolsheviks which resulted in mass starvation in Ukraine and millions of deaths is the gulags
We also had two world wars and communist revolutions that resulted in death on a scale not seen in the history of man.
It was not the Church that caused that, but those in the Church that failed in their duties.
The Catechism is against the evils of communism, but there are some men that have aligned with communists and “left wing” politics
It does not make communism right or the Church wrong. It just shows evil men have entered and good men need to stand up and say no. I don’t think right wing politics is the greatest answer either In the United States we have over 65,000,000 dead from abortion on the operating room floor. It may as well be a temple of Molech.

Great times this separation of church and state gives us. The state can corrupt when left unbridled which it has been, since Luther made the argument.

Most of what you've written is completely off-topic, and not really worth addressing. What is somewhat worth addressing is you seem to have a picture of history that doesn't actually reflect the history, as it is laughable to say the church was the conscience of the state considering the atrocities that were done by the state in the name of the church. And saying Luther is responsible for separation of church and state shows you are either ignorant of what transpired with the magisterial reformers, or you're so bent on tarring Luther that you'll accuse him of things that he had no part in.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Most of what you've written is completely off-topic, and not really worth addressing. What is somewhat worth addressing is you seem to have a picture of history that doesn't actually reflect the history, as it is laughable to say the church was the conscience of the state considering the atrocities that were done by the state in the name of the church. And saying Luther is responsible for separation of church and state shows you are either ignorant of what transpired with the magisterial reformers, or you're so bent on tarring Luther that you'll accuse him of things that he had no part in.

I read history, not propaganda. You are told that atrocities were done in the name of the Church, that is propaganda to get you to reject the Church. Conflict and bloodshed have been on the Earth from the beginning, to use that as an excuse to refuse to look at facts is the absurdity which is laughable.
Are you so easily deceived?

Look at the change in philosophy after the “reformation”, which by your own admission destroyed the authority of the Church and gave
It to individuals. Descartes gave us rationalism which denied the supernatural this resulted in modernism and a rejection of supernatural explanations of the miricles of Jesus.

We were told that Jesus did not feed the 5000 but everyone just shared together and were fed. Jesus did not raise the dead, He just knew CPR, or the person was just in a coma and woke up a few days later as we hear of stories today of people being buried alive they thought were dead. Philosophers elevated human reason above God from that time forward. Then we get to Darwin that got the unbelieving world to reject God entirely. Evolution is a narrative, not science.

A narrative takes a story and tries to get evidence to back it up and uses ridicule to deter detractors.

Science takes all the data, comes up with an explanation and attempts to falsify that explanation. Science welcomes criticism and does not ridicule detractors. If you look at the experiments used to prove evolution, you will find that they are deeply flawed scientifically but are taught as gospel to our children.

Luther did argue for separation of Church and state. He showed the princes that they could defy the Church without feeling guilty, so rebellion reigned and spread to the arts, philosophy and politics

Keep laughing, the demons will join you, as they love ridicule for their primary weapon . When you stop and look at the facts, you can come to the truth, but you have to be willing to look.

Scientific materialism and propaganda have so taken over the thoughts of modern man, that philosophy is no longer considered a science. This is absurd, as philosophy is the search for truth, and it defines what science is. Take it away and you get what we have today, which is narrative and not science. The great and powerful wizard of Oz now runs the world, don’t look behind that curtain, they will think you are crazy

We now live in a world where the authority of the Church has been discredited without and within the Church. Individual authority seems to reign supreme. Do you like what you see?

All is not lost. Jesus says, I know my sheep and my sheep know me, they will not listen to another. The faithful are humble and remain in the Church. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It tells you all you need to know about the Christian Faith once delivered to the saints.

Or don’t. Just continue to declare yourself rich, well fed and in need of nothing. Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, God says you are miserable, blind, poor and naked. He that has an ear let him hear what the spirt says to the churches

 

[fhansen]

That's not the order things worked for me, in fact it wasn't until I humbled myself and realized that I knew nothing that relational knowledge of God truly took root that I even had a foundation to build anything resembling head knowledge on.

Well, in my experience faith came by hearing-and I heard knowledge that I didn't have before. But yes, humility must enter in at some point or else we'll never receive anything much beyond what we think we already know. Now, if we’re just looking to argue we could say that existence is another prerequisite. In any case as Trent teaches many things happen in preparation for conversion, and all can be seen as stemming from grace.

The common legacy hasn't been rejected, in fact what many reformer's seek to do is return the church to primitive teachings that it has departed from.

Sure like the Latter Day Saints. Either way that, as often as not, amounts to returning to the church that they think or speculate that it departed from. Immerse yourself in the patristics, where we can get some real history lessons, and I'll bet you'll come out smelling more EO or Catholic that you might think. At least most Christians adhere to basic Nicene theology, but others don't bother -or come up with their own based on Scripture alone.

It has everything to do with following a particular person, because the entire basis Rome claims to have authority from is its purported relationship with Peter. Of course it downplays important parts of history and outright ignores statements it agreed to in ecumenical councils regarding Antioch and Constantinople. There need not be a central authority when information is plentiful, ideas can be challenged with ideas and historical fact with historical fact. Central authority is nearly always a recipe for abuse, as can be seen from the history of institutional churches.

Authority, alone, is a recipe for abuse, whether the authority of an individual or that of an institution. Again, men sin. And being in union with the pope is different in kind from following individual disciples in NT time, as if there was more than one gospel. Papal authority is always connected to the authority of the church, in union with the bishops, and has the purpose of maintaining a unity of faith in its fulness.

Historical fact? That’s sort of funny-more often than not Protestants seem to ignore history-they have their bible after all and so they already “know” it all. Luther’s crux of the reformation: his take on justification, had nothing to do with historical understanding but with a novel, myopic interpretation of Scripture. And even if the papacy were the wrongly identified authority, authority must still lie with the church in order to ward off abuse: Sola Ecclesia. Again, without that church we wouldn’t even have Nicene theology, or the new testament canon that we have. Just the teachings on what it means to be right in the eyes of God are skewed in Protestantism while sound in EO and RC teachings. Here’s the right order:

*Grace
*Faith-resulting in forgiveness of sin, new creations, infused justice or righteousness=justification
*Salvation: a continued walk and increase in the righteousness given, growth in holiness, in love/the image of God, overcoming sin, doing good all resulting in eternal life, the Beatific Vision.
*Loss of salvation: the possibility of doing otherwise, of falling away, of returning to the flesh/sin. Jere a new change of heart and repentance is necessary for restored relationship to take place.

And these concepts have their foundations early on in eastern and western church history where, particularly in Catholicism, they have been solidly worked out and laid down over the centuries. The Beatific Vision, alone, is of central importance to the faith while many Protestants haven’t even heard the concept-having lost “sight” of it, apparently. Aquinas produced rational and insightful arguments that intelligently support this doctrine while God has blest some in church history to actually have had glimpses of this ineffable vision that constitutes heaven itself. Orthodox understand it-with the doctrine of theosis and the teaching that salvation is a journey to God, requiring our participation, and one that can be opted out of at any point. There is so much wisdom in the ancient understanding-and I find bits and pieces of it in Protestantism, sometimes more, sometimes less.

 

[Fervent]

Well, in my experience faith came by hearing-and I heard knowledge that I didn't have before. But yes, humility must enter in at some point or else we'll never receive anything much beyond what we think we already know. Now, if we’re just looking to argue we could say that existence is another prerequisite. In any case as Trent teaches many things happen in preparation for conversion, and all can be seen as stemming from grace.

Hearing, sure, but the hearing is as simple as the declaration of Christ's death and resurrection. it doesn't require deep theological knowledge, just the message declared in every Christian church.

Sure like the Latter Day Saints. Either way that, as often as not, amounts to returning to the church that they think or speculate that it departed from. Immerse yourself in the patristics, where we can get some real history lessons, and I'll bet you'll come out smelling more EO or Catholic that you might think. At least most Christians adhere to basic Nicene theology, but others don't bother -or come up with their own based on Scripture alone.

The Latter Day Saints do a bit more than claiming to restore the primitive church. I've immersed myself in the patristics, and I do find myself more aligned theologically with EO than a lot of protestants. That doesn't divert the issue from what the reformer's saw as a church that had become divorced from its history and was instead tied up in the teachings of medieval school men.

Authority, alone, is a recipe for abuse, whether the authority of an individual or that of an institution. Again, men sin. And being in union with the pope is different in kind from following individual disciples in NT time, as if there was more than one gospel. Papal authority is always connected to the authority of the church, in union with the bishops, and has the purpose of maintaining a unity of faith in its fulness.

It's not different in kind, you only say as much because you have sworn fealty to papal authority. But that position cuts against councillatory statements that affirmed the autonomy and equal stature of Constantinople and Antioch, at the very least. Rome certainly had honor among the early churches, but there's no indication it had the sort of authority it claimed for itself around the first millenium at any point prior to that. So following Rome is basically the same as Paul denounced in 1 Cor.

Historical fact? That’s sort of funny-more often than not Protestants seem to ignore history-they have their bible after all and so they already “know” it all. Luther’s crux of the reformation: his take on justification, had nothing to do with historical understanding but with a novel, myopic interpretation of Scripture. And even if the papacy were the wrongly identified authority, authority must still lie with the church in order to ward off abuse: Sola Ecclesia. Again, without that church we wouldn’t even have Nicene theology, or the new testament canon that we have. Just the teachings on what it means to be right in the eyes of God are skewed in Protestantism while sound in EO and RC teachings. Here’s the right order:

The question isn't whether authority lies with the church, but how we identify the church. Which is why I say the true revolutionary issue of the reformation was the priesthood of all believers, in opposition to a deeply entrenched clericalism that saw "the church" as the domain of the bishops. So here we've come to the real point of disagreement.

*Grace
*Faith-resulting in forgiveness of sin, new creations, infused justice or righteousness=justification
*Salvation: a continued walk and increase in the righteousness given, growth in holiness, in love/the image of God, overcoming sin, doing good all resulting in eternal life, the Beatific Vision.
*Loss of salvation: the possibility of doing otherwise, of falling away, of returning to the flesh/sin. Jere a new change of heart and repentance is necessary for restored relationship to take place.

And these concepts have their foundations early on in eastern and western church history where, particularly in Catholicism, they have been solidly worked out and laid down over the centuries. The Beatific Vision, alone, is of central importance to the faith while many Protestants haven’t even heard the concept-having lost “sight” of it, apparently. Aquinas produced rational and insightful arguments that intelligently support this doctrine while God has blest some in church history to actually have had glimpses of this ineffable vision that constitutes heaven itself. Orthodox understand it-with the doctrine of theosis and the teaching that salvation is a journey to God, requiring our participation, and one that can be opted out of at any point. There is so much wisdom in the ancient understanding-and I find bits and pieces of it in Protestantism, sometimes more, sometimes less.

While there are certainly ideas with merit in such things, Lutheran Christification isn't all that different from theosis. So the issues you're raising here aren't without protestant parallels, though there are certainly areas of disagreement. However, you seem to be playing a shell game again where you're acknowledging the teachings of the doctors of the church as Catholic teaching while I would bet if such teaching that has fallen out of favor was to be brought out you would disavow it as Catholic teaching. So while it's all well and good to discuss such things, there's nothing about protestantism that doesn't allow protestants from making use of the teachings of either Catholics or EO without adopting the systems that those teachers operated under.

 

[The Liturgist]

What you will find is that all of your so called denominations have changed Jesus teaching on sexual morality and no longer view it as important.

Actually, to be fair, this depends on the denomination. Many are very conservative and some, including the Mennonites and Amish, require women and girls to wear modest attire so that lust can be avoided. Also I know of a Protestant pastor who was so concerned about lust that he argued against public swimming pools.

 

[The Liturgist]

Satan allied with the institutional church far more often than he has tried to destroy it. He promised the clergy kingdoms, and they obliged.

The devil attacks all clergy who preach the truth, and tries to bolster the careers of heretics. I think it is entirely wrong to speak of the devil forming an alliance with a Nicene Christian denomination not actively propagating a heresy or promoting immoral behavior.

The Roman Catholic Church has a very good track record of doctrinal correctness.

 

[Fervent]

The devil attacks all clergy who preach the truth, and tries to bolster the careers of heretics. I think it is entirely wrong to speak of the devil forming an alliance with a Nicene Christian denomination not actively propagating a heresy or promoting immoral behavior.

To an extent, but ultimately the kind of apocalyptic worldview that permeates the NT and the ministry of Jesus isn't sustainable when the church and state cozy up to each other. Which has led to the abandonment of several critical theological doctrine, not least of which is the extent to which a Christus Victor model of the atonement has been downplayed and an expectation of immanent return has been abandoned(and even cautioned against)

The Roman Catholic Church has a very good track record of doctrinal correctness.

I don't think we can neatly separate doctrine from practice, and the RCC has a somewhat checkered history on both.

 

[The Liturgist]

not least of which is the extent to which a Christus Victor model of the atonement has been downplayed

The Orthodox Church is the state church in many countries and strongly emphasizes Christus Victor, and I would say that the Catholics stress Christus Victor much more than some denominations.

 

[Fervent]

I read history, not propaganda. You are told that atrocities were done in the name of the Church, that is propaganda to get you to reject the Church. Conflict and bloodshed have been on the Earth from the beginning, to use that as an excuse to refuse to look at facts is the absurdity which is laughable.
Are you so easily deceived?

If you don't recognize the atrocities done by the church, then it's likely you're the one reading a sanitized history that is likely propaganda. I'm not refusing to look at facts, but staring at the obvious fact that the claims of the RCC are unsupportable on the basis of its history.

Look at the change in philosophy after the “reformation”, which by your own admission destroyed the authority of the Church and gave
It to individuals. Descartes gave us rationalism which denied the supernatural this resulted in modernism and a rejection of supernatural explanations of the miricles of Jesus.

Because being superstitious is so much better, right?

We were told that Jesus did not feed the 5000 but everyone just shared together and were fed. Jesus did not raise the dead, He just knew CPR, or the person was just in a coma and woke up a few days later as we hear of stories today of people being buried alive they thought were dead. Philosophers elevated human reason above God from that time forward. Then we get to Darwin that got the unbelieving world to reject God entirely. Evolution is a narrative, not science.

You do realize the RCC accommodates evolution, no? And your objection is spurious to the question at hand.

A narrative takes a story and tries to get evidence to back it up and uses ridicule to deter detractors.

Science takes all the data, comes up with an explanation and attempts to falsify that explanation. Science welcomes criticism and does not ridicule detractors. If you look at the experiments used to prove evolution, you will find that they are deeply flawed scientifically but are taught as gospel to our children.

Another irrelevant screed.

Luther did argue for separation of Church and state. He showed the princes that they could defy the Church without feeling guilty, so rebellion reigned and spread to the arts, philosophy and politics

He argued no such thing, otherwise Luther and Calvin wouldn't be referred to as the "magisterial" reformers. Separation of church and state is an enlightenment idea, not a product of the reformation.

Keep laughing, the demons will join you, as they love ridicule for their primary weapon . When you stop and look at the facts, you can come to the truth, but you have to be willing to look.

Did you take your meds this morning?

Scientific materialism and propaganda have so taken over the thoughts of modern man, that philosophy is no longer considered a science. This is absurd, as philosophy is the search for truth, and it defines what science is. Take it away and you get what we have today, which is narrative and not science. The great and powerful wizard of Oz now runs the world, don’t look behind that curtain, they will think you are crazy

What does this have to do with whether the RCC is the church, or just another denomination?

We now live in a world where the authority of the Church has been discredited without and within the Church. Individual authority seems to reign supreme. Do you like what you see?

What discredited the authority of the church was the conduct of its officers. If it wasn't for situations like the Avignon captivity and other papal controversies, there would have never been a reformation. The church showed it couldn't handle the authority it had been afforded.

All is not lost. Jesus says, I know my sheep and my sheep know me, they will not listen to another. The faithful are humble and remain in the Church. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It tells you all you need to know about the Christian Faith once delivered to the saints.

Cause your screeds are the hallmark of humility.

Or don’t. Just continue to declare yourself rich, well fed and in need of nothing. Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, God says you are miserable, blind, poor and naked. He that has an ear let him hear what the spirt says to the churches

And what, exactly, is this supposed to mean?

 

[Fervent]

The Orthodox Church is the state church in many countries and strongly emphasizes Christus Victor, and I would say that the Catholics stress Christus Victor much more than some denominations.

The orthodox church has never been quite as infused with the state as Rome was in its heyday, but even with a restoration of Christus Victor in the RCC since Christendom has failed it still sits uncomfortably because the model is dependent on a view of the world in which Satan is in control of Earthly kingdoms. Which is why satisfaction came to be so attractive to the RCC at the height of church power.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Actually, to be fair, this depends on the denomination. Many are very conservative and some, including the Mennonites and Amish, require women and girls to wear modest attire so that lust can be avoided. Also I know of a Protestant pastor who was so concerned about lust that he argued against public swimming pools.

That may be true, but do they condone contraception, which is an offense against the natural law and the commands of God?

 

[The Liturgist]

That may be true, but do they condone contraception, which is an offense against the natural law and the commands of God?

Not the more conservative ones, such as the conservative Mennonites and the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation. Nor do most Orthodox churches. Instead, they require marital fasting. And one can be excommunicated for decades from an Orthodox church for engaging in arsenokoetia which is to say, sodomitic sexual relations, even while heterosexually married. The same is true with the more conservative Protestant churches.

Also it may interest you to note that the two Congregationalist churches I organized some years back regard contraception and abortion as being morally reprehensible. This is both because I believe this, and wanted to fully reject the liberalism of the United Church of Christ, and also because the churches are planned for an eventual union with either a continuing Anglo-Catholic, confessional Lutheran or Eastern or Oriental Orthodox denomination where these things are either banned or viewed in a very negative way.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

If you don't recognize the atrocities done by the church, then it's likely you're the one reading a sanitized history that is likely propaganda. I'm not refusing to look at facts, but staring at the obvious fact that the claims of the RCC are unsupportable on the basis of its history.

Because being superstitious is so much better, right?

You do realize the RCC accommodates evolution, no? And your objection is spurious to the question at hand.

Another irrelevant screed.

He argued no such thing, otherwise Luther and Calvin wouldn't be referred to as the "magisterial" reformers. Separation of church and state is an enlightenment idea, not a product of the reformation.

Did you take your meds this morning?

What does this have to do with whether the RCC is the church, or just another denomination?

Keep insulting me, I have been where you are and understand why you do it, but it does not help your case that you claim to know the truth.

You stand as judge and proclaim the Apostolic Church as irrelevant and schism justified. Do you base that judgement on facts or opinions? Do you know the difference ?

You make bold claims, such as we have established…. It is obvious from history….

Have you heard of Ex Opere Operato? It is the principle that the grace of God flows through His Church independent on the righteousness of its members. The opposite would make God dependent on men rather than men dependent on God.

Just as today, you can find corruption in the Church. A few that come to mind at Catholic Campaign for human development, Catholic Charities, and the USCCB. They have become corrupted by the state and the spirit of the age.
We can also see that Liberation Theology that was preached by many Jesuits was actually started by KGB operatives infiltrating the Church.
So what? Does the presence of evil men discredit the Church? No, and neither does it justify schism. Evil is not overcome by more evil.

Read the Catechism before you make a judgement. Read all of Church history that includes the original writings of the Church fathers.
Read Humani Genesis by Pius XII, which is misquoted in support of evolution. You can find it on line, or in the Liturgy of the Hours.

If you won’t then you are as the Church in Laodicea from Revelation. You claim to be rich and have all you need, but don’t realize your abject poverty. Or make snap judgements like the high priest in the play Jesus Christ Superstar.

“There you have it gentlemen, what more evidence do we need? Judas thank you for the victim, stay awhile and you’ll see it bleed. Now we got him, now we got him. Now we got him, now we got him.”

Do you really want to maintain that path?