Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

[Marc Perry]

Thank you Marc for this post on the history of the different churches within Protestantism, which I'd hope you would agree, is a very short history compared to the two thousand plus year history of the Catholic Church, that was founded by Jesus Christ.

I also couldn't help but notice you didn't address a couple of questions I asked in my last post. You probably just forgot, so I will re-post them:

1."Would you agree that Jesus did found the church?"

2."And doesn’t the Bible also say the church is the Body of Christ?"

If you don't mind, I also would like to ask you (or any other Protestant/ non-Denominational/ Bible Christian poster) another question. Is there any church within all of Protestantism, whose opinion about matters of doctrine you would accept as being authoritative over and above your own private interpretation?


Have a Blessed Day!

Oh, ok. I thought you were more just curious about the original protestant viewpoint than apologetics.

As I've tried to show, protestants have a different definition of 'church' than you. So it is really hard to argue your points #1 and #2 without a common vocabulary. It's a much different word from denomination to us.

I don't think there are very many protestants who would see any denomination as being 'authoritative' in the sense you seem to be using it in. A lot of people stay in their denominations because that is what they grew up in. The focus in those churches is more about the day to day spirituality, and not about agreeing with the particular philosophy of the founders. Because of this, many standard protestants are willing to 'shop around' the protestants churches where they live, and most choose their church based on the quality of the pastor/community/youth program and things like that. The most a pastor might say in a sermon might be: "Luther said that ... because ...". But this is more to give a reference to someone who is respected because he always gave lengthy defenses of his ideas. Luther's words can't stand on the merit of being from Luther, the focus is on the idea. Not even Lutherans believe everything Luther said. I don't think it would offend anyone, and it wouldn't be outside our theology, for the pastor to continue with a few points that he thought Luther missed or even got wrong.

People from different denominations go to each other's churches all the time. This is especially true for things like Easter, where they want to stay together as a family instead of splitting up into their particular choice of denomination. Or if some one's new in town they might 'shop around' if they don't like the way the individual church is run, even though that was the denomination they were used to. Or if that town just doesn't have that type of church. I've even been to a Catholic church a few times. We don't see Catholic's as non-christian, so we think we can also attend a Catholic mass and still fulfill our sabbath duty.

There are, of course, people who choose for themselves to delve deep into a particular denominations theology. But they are in the vast minority, at least where I'm from. But even for those people, they don't take any founder's 'word for it' on anything and demand good explanations and look at competing arguments, even the competing arguments from the Catholic church.

One note though ... one thing among some of the denominations that they might push their theology on is Baptism. Lutheran's and some others take a type of Catholic stance, and then there are people like the Baptists. But, ultimately, it is up to the parents to choose and we will accept any baptism from any church (including Catholics). And it's not uncommon for parents to go to one church just for a baptism, then return to the other church that they are comfortable in.

 

[Marc Perry]

Thank you Marc for this post on the history of the different churches within Protestantism, which I'd hope you would agree, is a very short history compared to the two thousand plus year history of the Catholic Church, that was founded by Jesus Christ.

Every church argues that it is the first church and the one Jesus founded. You're argument doesn't seem that strong from a protestant viewpoint.

Also, the founders didn't feel like they were creating anything new. They quoted the church fathers all the time in their discussions. So they, too, felt like they were part of that history.

 

[Marc Perry]

.

 

[garee]

I've been waiting for a reply. But I just can't hold this anymore. The way people outside the Roman Catholic Church disagree, is because they view the Catholic Church is as a state tool. In the ancient days. That's why there are so many breaks.

A few people got their hands on Roman power, and used it to legitimize their throne. That's how it's viewed and why people today aren't willing to just listen to claims of 'we're the first church'.

Why would anyone make such a claim seeing the kingdom of God does not come by observing the temporal corrupted things seen. A person must be born again from above. Not earthly inspired after the god of this world.

If we were to look to the things seen rather than the unseen eternal things of God he would of instructed us to do so. . Things Christians are to be concerned with is the exclusive faith faith of Christ. The one teaching Master not seen.

The Bible was not written by the church to the church as a private interpretation. Its loving commandment does not come by the feet of those sent (apostles) with the gospel key called prophecy (sola scriptura).

He does not lovingly command us to study in order to seek the "approval" of God not seen and then leave us Fatherless(2 Timothy 2:15) One is our Father in heaven . He left us His eternal bride with the tools so that we could seek after him.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

We therefore walk or understand eternal God by the unseen eternal

If we were instructed to walk after or understand after the temporal things seen. The pagan foundation fools no God in their heart .(not born again) Then the church began with Able in who God had given the fulness of His grace .He does not give unknown remnants of grace leaving a person to wonder. . never coming to the end of faith believing God not seen>.

The first "one sent" which defines the word apostle and first martyr was Abel. Abel's blood still cries out from the corn field where he was slain by his faithless (no God in his heart) as in out of sight out of mind his brother Cain.

In that way God is still sending out apostles. . those who bring the good new gospel . Saints in the old testament like Abel were moved by the work of Christ working in them to both will and empower them to carry out his will the same as today.

They received the end of their new faith, new spirit, new heart as those born again just as we do today. We look back to the demonstration of the cross. They that did have the Spirit of Christ in them looked ahead .

Same gospel, same members as the bride of Christ the church. She is made up of many lively stones that makes up the spiritual unseen house. . . again as the one bride the church

1 Peter 1:9-11 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

 

[Marc Perry]

Why would anyone make such a claim seeing the kingdom of God does not come by observing the temporal corrupted things seen. A person must be born again from above. Not earthly inspired after the god of this world.

If we were to look to the things seen rather than the unseen eternal things of God he would of instructed us to do so. . Things Christians are to be concerned with is the exclusive faith faith of Christ. The one teaching Master not seen.

The Bible was not written by the church to the church as a private interpretation. Its loving commandment does not come by the feet of those sent (apostles) with the gospel key called prophecy (sola scriptura).

He does not lovingly command us to study in order to seek the "approval" of God not seen and then leave us Fatherless(2 Timothy 2:15) One is our Father in heaven . He left us His eternal bride with the tools so that we could seek after him.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

We therefore walk or understand eternal God by the unseen eternal

If we were instructed to walk after or understand after the temporal things seen. The pagan foundation fools no God in their heart .(not born again) Then the church began with Able in who God had given the fulness of His grace .He does not give unknown remnants of grace leaving a person to wonder. . never coming to the end of faith believing God not seen>.

The first "one sent" which defines the word apostle and first martyr was Abel. Abel's blood still cries out from the corn field where he was slain by his faithless (no God in his heart) as in out of sight out of mind his brother Cain.

In that way God is still sending out apostles. . those who bring the good new gospel . Saints in the old testament like Abel were moved by the work of Christ working in them to both will and empower them to carry out his will the same as today.

They received the end of their new faith, new spirit, new heart as those born again just as we do today. We look back to the demonstration of the cross. They that did have the Spirit of Christ in them looked ahead .

Same gospel, same members as the bride of Christ the church. She is made up of many lively stones that makes up the spiritual unseen house. . . again as the one bride the church

1 Peter 1:9-11 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. But I really regretted making the post your referencing because I realized I didn't know the person well enough to see how it might challenge his faith. I couldn't figure out how to delete it, so I replaced it with a dot so the man wouldn't see it. Please do the same.

From what I can gather, you're arguing the faith-church viewpoint. The person I was talking to was Catholic, and they view it as the literal church. He just had some questions about how protestants view it, so I was trying to answer it for him. The point I think you're trying to argue is the point I was trying to show him.

 

[lsume]

Oh, ok. I thought you were more just curious about the original protestant viewpoint than apologetics.

As I've tried to show, protestants have a different definition of 'church' than you. So it is really hard to argue your points #1 and #2 without a common vocabulary. It's a much different word from denomination to us.

I don't think there are very many protestants who would see any denomination as being 'authoritative' in the sense you seem to be using it in. A lot of people stay in their denominations because that is what they grew up in. The focus in those churches is more about the day to day spirituality, and not about agreeing with the particular philosophy of the founders. Because of this, many standard protestants are willing to 'shop around' the protestants churches where they live, and most choose their church based on the quality of the pastor/community/youth program and things like that. The most a pastor might say in a sermon might be: "Luther said that ... because ...". But this is more to give a reference to someone who is respected because he always gave lengthy defenses of his ideas. Luther's words can't stand on the merit of being from Luther, the focus is on the idea. Not even Lutherans believe everything Luther said. I don't think it would offend anyone, and it wouldn't be outside our theology, for the pastor to continue with a few points that he thought Luther missed or even got wrong.

People from different denominations go to each other's churches all the time. This is especially true for things like Easter, where they want to stay together as a family instead of splitting up into their particular choice of denomination. Or if some one's new in town they might 'shop around' if they don't like the way the individual church is run, even though that was the denomination they were used to. Or if that town just doesn't have that type of church. I've even been to a Catholic church a few times. We don't see Catholic's as non-christian, so we think we can also attend a Catholic mass and still fulfill our sabbath duty.

There are, of course, people who choose for themselves to delve deep into a particular denominations theology. But they are in the vast minority, at least where I'm from. But even for those people, they don't take any founder's 'word for it' on anything and demand good explanations and look at competing arguments, even the competing arguments from the Catholic church.

One note though ... one thing among some of the denominations that they might push their theology on is Baptism. Lutheran's and some others take a type of Catholic stance, and then there are people like the Baptists. But, ultimately, it is up to the parents to choose and we will accept any baptism from any church (including Catholics). And it's not uncommon for parents to go to one church just for a baptism, then return to the other church that they are comfortable in.

The only true church is the one that Christ has been gathering together since His resurrection. I’m sure that you are aware of this simple humbling fact.

 

[Marc Perry]

Why would anyone make such a claim seeing the kingdom of God does not come by observing the temporal corrupted things seen. A person must be born again from above. Not earthly inspired after the god of this world.

If we were to look to the things seen rather than the unseen eternal things of God he would of instructed us to do so. . Things Christians are to be concerned with is the exclusive faith faith of Christ. The one teaching Master not seen.

The Bible was not written by the church to the church as a private interpretation. Its loving commandment does not come by the feet of those sent (apostles) with the gospel key called prophecy (sola scriptura).

He does not lovingly command us to study in order to seek the "approval" of God not seen and then leave us Fatherless(2 Timothy 2:15) One is our Father in heaven . He left us His eternal bride with the tools so that we could seek after him.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

We therefore walk or understand eternal God by the unseen eternal

If we were instructed to walk after or understand after the temporal things seen. The pagan foundation fools no God in their heart .(not born again) Then the church began with Able in who God had given the fulness of His grace .He does not give unknown remnants of grace leaving a person to wonder. . never coming to the end of faith believing God not seen>.

The first "one sent" which defines the word apostle and first martyr was Abel. Abel's blood still cries out from the corn field where he was slain by his faithless (no God in his heart) as in out of sight out of mind his brother Cain.

In that way God is still sending out apostles. . those who bring the good new gospel . Saints in the old testament like Abel were moved by the work of Christ working in them to both will and empower them to carry out his will the same as today.

They received the end of their new faith, new spirit, new heart as those born again just as we do today. We look back to the demonstration of the cross. They that did have the Spirit of Christ in them looked ahead .

Same gospel, same members as the bride of Christ the church. She is made up of many lively stones that makes up the spiritual unseen house. . . again as the one bride the church

1 Peter 1:9-11 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

I'll try to answer this as a Catholic might see it. I'm not Catholic, so they might view things differently than what I'm saying, but I'll try to give them some defense.

First, you are equating the Kingdom of God with the Church. This comparison isn't scriptural and wasn't, as far as I know, the belief held in the earliest writings we have about the Kingdom of God.

I don't think Catholics today see the temporal part of the church as infallible. Rather, it was an entity established by Jesus to help interpret the will and word of God and to guide the spiritual life of believers. We can see examples of this in Acts. The spiritual part of the church has been guided by Christ and is a part of his body. So in that sense, it is infallible since Christ is infallible.

 

[Marc Perry]

The only true church is the one that Christ has been gathering together since His resurrection. I’m sure that you are aware of this simple humbling fact.

Sure. But it still depends on how you define 'church'. I don't know for sure, but I think Jehovah's Witness' and Mormons hold a different view of 'church' as well. So there isn't one global definition.

I also don't understand why you're arguing with me. I was defending what appears to be your viewpoint.

 

[lsume]

Sure. But it still depends on how you define 'church'. I don't know for sure, but I think Jehovah's Witness' and Mormons hold a different view of 'church' as well. So there isn't one global definition.

I also don't understand why you're arguing with me. I was defending what appears to be your viewpoint.

Not arguing and I apologize for giving you that opinion. The True Church is only known by Christ. That is Truth.

 

[garee]

I'll try to answer this as a Catholic might see it. I'm not Catholic, so they might view things differently than what I'm saying, but I'll try to give them some defense.

First, you are equating the Kingdom of God with the Church. This comparison isn't scriptural and wasn't, as far as I know, the belief held in the earliest writings we have about the Kingdom of God.

I don't think Catholics today see the temporal part of the church as infallible. Rather, it was an entity established by Jesus to help interpret the will and word of God and to guide the spiritual life of believers. We can see examples of this in Acts. The spiritual part of the church has been guided by Christ and is a part of his body. So in that sense, it is infallible sense Christ is infallible.

The Pope is a temporal man seen.

The bride of Christ re-named by the Father in Acts previously call her Israel s Christian .Christian, a word with no other meaning is: "residents of the city prepared as the one bride." The kingdom not of this world .As born again from above Christian they are a kingdom of priest and are considered ambassadors sent as apostles from the foreign land the unseen eternal new Jerusalem not the earthly Jerusalem the temporal .

Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of God not seen alone is our teacher. We are to call no man on earth Master teacher/Rabi) or infallible as a daysman .In the same way we are to call no man on earth Holy Father .He alone is the infallible master not seen .

The Son of man Jesus the chief apostle and High priest sent by the Father refused to be called good Master as a infallible teacher (daysman)

Mark 10:17-18 King James Version (KJV) And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

In that way we walk or are given ears to hear what the teaching Master in heaven says. Not after the the temporal what the eyes see. (no faith coming from the unseen father )

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

In that way we learn of the unsen father than we come come to the son who also learned from the unseen Father . and therefore avoid the antichrists' another kind of teacher that looks to the things seen the temporal, the corrupted mankind.

John6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

 

[Marc Perry]

The Pope is a temporal man seen.

The bride of Christ re-named by the Father in Acts previously call her Israel s Christian .Christian, a word with no other meaning is: "residents of the city prepared as the one bride." The kingdom not of this world .As born again from above Christian they are a kingdom of priest and are considered ambassadors sent as apostles from the foreign land the unseen eternal new Jerusalem not the earthly Jerusalem the temporal .

Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of God not seen alone is our teacher. We are to call no man on earth Master teacher/Rabi) or infallible as a daysman .In the same way we are to call no man on earth Holy Father .He alone is the infallible master not seen .

The Son of man Jesus the chief apostle and High priest sent by the Father refused to be called good Master as a infallible teacher (daysman)

Mark 10:17-18 King James Version (KJV) And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

In that way we walk or are given ears to hear what the teaching Master in heaven says. Not after the the temporal what the eyes see. (no faith coming from the unseen father )

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

In that way we learn of the unsen father than we come come to the son who also learned from the unseen Father . and therefore avoid the antichrists' another kind of teacher that looks to the things seen the temporal, the corrupted mankind.

John6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

I really don't think Catholics currently see the pope as infallible in the way your suggesting. It's only about his capacity in deeply spiritual and officially proclaimed issues. Other than that ... politics, his character, the people he surrounds himself with, etc... are not seen as infallible. I understand the 'protest'ant views of the pope, but if you read the scriptures and church fathers through a Roman Catholic's eyes, I think the argument can be justified.

The reason I defend them so much is because I believe most of our perceived differences are historical rather than spiritual. The believe in the same God, read the same scriptures in a similar way, and try to follow the ways of Jesus. In an alternate history we might even all be seen as the same church, albeit with our differences. But maybe we would all just be called 'Christian'.

 

[garee]

I really don't think Catholics currently see the pope as infallible in the way your suggesting. It's only about his capacity in deeply spiritual and officially proclaimed issues. Other than that ... politics, his character, the people he surrounds himself with, etc... are not seen as infallible. I understand the 'protest'ant views of the pope, but if you read the scriptures and church fathers through a Roman Catholic's eyes, I think the argument can be justified.

The reason I defend them so much is because I believe most of our perceived differences are historical rather than spiritual. The believe in the same God, read the same scriptures in a similar way, and try to follow the ways of Jesus. In an alternate history we might even all be seen as the same church, albeit with our differences. But maybe we would all just be called 'Christian'.

I would think we would defend that which defends us . We are to put on and keep on the whole armor of God in that way as a living hope

Catholiscim as to their foundation requires men teach them rather than the unseen Holy Spirit reckoned by our Holy Father in heaven .

n that way its not mankind seen that teaches us comforts us and brings to our memory daily the things he has taught. We walk or understand as a foundation by faith, the unseen will of God working in us .Not of us, the temporal

John14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The bible calls that kind of foundation the law of the fathers, oral traditions of men .Venerable men that lord it over the faith of the non venerable pew sitters.

That would mean two teaching authorities or Masters . The law of men called fathers, kings and princes again, the things seen making all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura ) without effect.

Men standing in the holy unseen place of our Father in heaven . The bible calls it the abomination of desolation making desolate the word of God, the one source of Christian faith in exchange for oral traditions of men.

The faithless Jew used to represent faithless mankind had their faith after the things seen turned inspiration upside down as if inspired from earth and not our unseen Father in heaven .therefore taking away the understanding of the Potter not seen

Isaiah 29:16Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

In Mathew 3 we are lovingly commanded to "think not" to call a man seen and have him as if he was our unseen Father in heaven . In that way Jesus said our father in heaven can raise children as lively stones as that which makes up the spiritual unseen house the church. His bride

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

A person could use the Catholic father named Peter in that verse and have the same outcome. No such thing as a infallible teaching master of earth .We walk or understand God by faith the unseen will of our God .

Where a persons treasure is there we find the new born again hearts. If a person treasure is in Rome or any place on this earth they will seek its approval .Again we have the treasure of His power working in us yoked with him but is not of mankind us (fathers kings and princes.)

 

[Marc Perry]

I would think we would defend that which defends us . We are to put on and keep on the whole armor of God in that way as a living hope

Catholiscim as to their foundation requires men teach them rather than the unseen Holy Spirit reckoned by our Holy Father in heaven .

n that way its not mankind seen that teaches us comforts us and brings to our memory daily the things he has taught. We walk or understand as a foundation by faith, the unseen will of God working in us .Not of us, the temporal

John14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The bible calls that kind of foundation the law of the fathers, oral traditions of men .Venerable men that lord it over the faith of the non venerable pew sitters.

That would mean two teaching authorities or Masters . The law of men called fathers, kings and princes again, the things seen making all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura ) without effect.

Men standing in the holy unseen place of our Father in heaven . The bible calls it the abomination of desolation making desolate the word of God, the one source of Christian faith in exchange for oral traditions of men.

The faithless Jew used to represent faithless mankind had their faith after the things seen turned inspiration upside down as if inspired from earth and not our unseen Father in heaven .therefore taking away the understanding of the Potter not seen

Isaiah 29:16Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

In Mathew 3 we are lovingly commanded to "think not" to call a man seen and have him as if he was our unseen Father in heaven . In that way Jesus said our father in heaven can raise children as lively stones as that which makes up the spiritual unseen house the church. His bride

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

A person could use the Catholic father named Peter in that verse and have the same outcome. No such thing as a infallible teaching master of earth .We walk or understand God by faith the unseen will of our God .

Where a persons treasure is there we find the new born again hearts. If a person treasure is in Rome or any place on this earth they will seek its approval .Again we have the treasure of His power working in us yoked with him but is not of mankind us (fathers kings and princes.)

There are extreme views held by some protestants as well. The Amish come to mind. I think the point the person who started this little conversation was making was something like: "At least we know who we are listening to". The Catholics claim that the holy spirit works through the men that teach them. It's not the men. It's the holy spirit.

 

[garee]

There are extreme views held by some protestants as well. The Amish come to mind. I think the point the person who started this little conversation was making was something like: "At least we know who we are listening to". The Catholics claim that the holy spirit works through the men that teach them. It's not the men. It's the holy spirit.

I would offer in that way the Catholics use men in replacement of the Holy Spirit usurping the unseen authority of faith making it as it is written(sola scriptura) desolate .

 

[Marc Perry]

I would offer in that way the Catholics use men in replacement of the Holy Spirit usurping the unseen authority of faith making it as it is written(sola scriptura) desolate .

Maybe there are Roman Catholics out there who do that. I'm not going to argue that. But I think they are in the vast minority. All the ones I know focus on the day to day spirituality and just use the teachings of the church as a guide.

I'm assuming you're protestant, and if you are you are also heavily influenced by the church fathers. Especially Augustine, who is also the church father that influenced Catholics the most. Things like original sin, salvation by grace, the trinity, the idea that there should be a common new testament instead of each region keeping its own, the defenses and philosophies built to guard against paganism, the sacraments ... a few among many others. While they didn't invent these things, the church fathers are the ones who built the defenses and established the philosophies around them.

I think this is 99% of what the Catholic church does in regards to 'listening to men'. And, outside of some views of what the church is, we listen to the some ones they do. Even our views of the church and the keys being about faith was best philosophized and defended using Augustine in the early protestant church. If you want a quick idea of what things were like before they were able to build these philosophies, try reading through some of Origen. And, ultimately, yes. You were even influenced by him.

This is an edit because one more thought occurred to me. You can say that the early protestants shouldn't have listened to the writers before them ... but who do you think you got 'sola scruptura' from in the first place?

 

[garee]

Maybe there are Roman Catholics out there who do that. I'm not going to argue that. But I think they are in the vast minority. All the ones I know focus on the day to day spirituality and just use the teachings of the church as a guide.

I'm assuming you're protestant, and if you are you are also heavily influenced by the church fathers. Especially Augustine, who is also the church father that influenced Catholics the most. Things like original sin, salvation by grace, the trinity, the idea that there should be a common new testament instead of each region keeping its own, the defenses and philosophies built to guard against paganism, the sacraments ... a few among many others. While they didn't invent these things, the church fathers are the ones who built the defenses and established the philosophies around them.

I think this is 99% of what the Catholic church does in regards to 'listening to men'. And, outside of some views of what the church is, we listen to the some ones they do. Even our views of the church and the keys being about faith was best philosophized and defended using Augustine in the early protestant church. If you want a quick idea of what things were like before they were able to build these philosophies, try reading through some of Origen. And, ultimately, yes. You were even influenced by him.

This is an edit because one more thought occurred to me. You can say that the early protestants shouldn't have listened to the writers before them ... but who do you think you got 'sola scruptura' from in the first place?

'Sola scriptura' comes from all thing written in the law and the prophets. The word of God given to men not from flesh and blood. It is used 10 times directly in the new testament .

Its easy to see the key is the gospel as it is written with the it representing the work of the faith of Christ as his labor of love. Not after flesh and blood like that of our brother in the Lord Peter. If it was Peter two verses later the key did not work to bind the spirit of lies Satan.
it served as a lesson to properly distinguish between the unseen eternal things of God and the temporal things of men .Peter was forgiven of his blasphemy against the Son of man Jesus the chief apostle and High priest of Christian faith

I have never read any of Origen's private interpretation or personal commentators .And therefore not influenced by Origen to believe God not seen..Origen is not the Holy Spirit, the anointing teacher Christ.

He followed a law of the fathers .One of the first from looking on the Web to create the idea of "purgatory". That alone raises a red flag.

Any denomination that has a hierarchy that requires non venerable to seek the approval of venerable ones as those who lord it over the lay people. Kings, princes and fathers is a false foundation..

Its not a choice the non venerable can make but a must. There must be a man seen of hierarchy to do the work of usurping the Holy Spirit.

They have another foundation other than all things written in the law and the prophets that some call sola scriptura. That they call sacred tradition as oral traditions of men. Like I heard it through the grape vine..

Our brother in the Lord, Peter who is known for denying our Father in heaven over and over. One time right after being reinstated again of his blasphemy against the Son of man, the prophet and chief apostle Jesus.(forgivable when Jesus was here)

Peter started I heard it through the grape vine as a oral tradition of men . Went to town and said Jesus said the apostle John would not die as if all men were not appointed to die once and then comes the new destination of judgement , a new incorruptible body as sons of God (all believers).According to 1 John as not yet knowing what we will be when he appears on the last day under the sun . Which will be as a new creation the bride of Christ . . neither male, nor female Jew nor gentile.

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Yet Jesus the Son of man did not say John would not die. And then the Holy Spirit informs us that if every time it had to correct the lies of the oral traditions of men the whole world would not be able to contain the good works of God exposés the lies.

Even that portion of scripture below the law of the fathers would say it supports the scared traditions of Fathers. As well as the commandment to call no man on earth Holy Father, one is in heaven therefore the fathers making sola scriptura without effect.

John 21:22-25 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen

The doctrine of purgatory alone again should raise a red flag seeing it does despite to the fullness of the grace of God ..

 

[Ddurel]

We need an infallible teaching authority, So we would know exactly what God teaches. And we would want to know exactly what God teaches so we can know the truth. And we want to know the truth, because the truth sets us free. And the truth alone brings happiness. If there is no infallible teaching authority then we don’t know if our interpretation of the Bible is correct. And If our interpretation is wrong that could lead to bad decisions which bring under happiness in our life.

 

[BNR32FAN]

'Sola scriptura' comes from all thing written in the law and the prophets. The word of God given to men not from flesh and blood. It is used 10 times directly in the new testament .

Its easy to see the key is the gospel as it is written with the it representing the work of the faith of Christ as his labor of love. Not after flesh and blood like that of our brother in the Lord Peter. If it was Peter two verses later the key did not work to bind the spirit of lies Satan.
it served as a lesson to properly distinguish between the unseen eternal things of God and the temporal things of men .Peter was forgiven of his blasphemy against the Son of man Jesus the chief apostle and High priest of Christian faith

I have never read any of Origen's private interpretation or personal commentators .And therefore not influenced by Origen to believe God not seen..Origen is not the Holy Spirit, the anointing teacher Christ.

He followed a law of the fathers .One of the first from looking on the Web to create the idea of "purgatory". That alone raises a red flag.

Any denomination that has a hierarchy that requires non venerable to seek the approval of venerable ones as those who lord it over the lay people. Kings, princes and fathers is a false foundation..

Its not a choice the non venerable can make but a must. There must be a man seen of hierarchy to do the work of usurping the Holy Spirit.

They have another foundation other than all things written in the law and the prophets that some call sola scriptura. That they call sacred tradition as oral traditions of men. Like I heard it through the grape vine..

Our brother in the Lord, Peter who is known for denying our Father in heaven over and over. One time right after being reinstated again of his blasphemy against the Son of man, the prophet and chief apostle Jesus.(forgivable when Jesus was here)

Peter started I heard it through the grape vine as a oral tradition of men . Went to town and said Jesus said the apostle John would not die as if all men were not appointed to die once and then comes the new destination of judgement , a new incorruptible body as sons of God (all believers).According to 1 John as not yet knowing what we will be when he appears on the last day under the sun . Which will be as a new creation the bride of Christ . . neither male, nor female Jew nor gentile.

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Yet Jesus the Son of man did not say John would not die. And then the Holy Spirit informs us that if every time it had to correct the lies of the oral traditions of men the whole world would not be able to contain the good works of God exposés the lies.

Even that portion of scripture below the law of the fathers would say it supports the scared traditions of Fathers. As well as the commandment to call no man on earth Holy Father, one is in heaven therefore the fathers making sola scriptura without effect.

John 21:22-25 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen

The doctrine of purgatory alone again should raise a red flag seeing it does despite to the fullness of the grace of God ..

Actually Origen never said anything about purgatory. The doctrine of purgatory wasn’t formulated until 1439AD at the council of Florence and wasn’t supported by any of the early church father’s before that time. This is why purgatory has been rejected by all of the apostolic churches except for Rome. Rome is completely alone in that claim once again just like they were in their claim to papal supremacy back in the 11th century. No, purgatory was instituted for the sole purpose of soliciting indulgences for the deceased. It’s no coincidence that purgatory was formulated in the exact same era and region where the abuse of indulgences were at an all time high which largely influenced the birth of the reformation to begin with.

 

[garee]

Actually Origen never said anything about purgatory. The doctrine of purgatory wasn’t formulated until 1439AD at the council of Florence and wasn’t supported by any of the early church father’s before that time. This is why purgatory has been rejected by all of the apostolic churches except for Rome. Rome is completely alone in that claim once again just like they were in their claim to papal supremacy back in the 11th century. No, purgatory was instituted for the sole purpose of soliciting indulgences for the deceased. It’s no coincidence that purgatory was formulated in the exact same era and region where the abuse of indulgences were at an all time high which largely influenced the birth of the reformation to begin with.

Thanks for that . Do you know what Origen's view was on the "law of the fathers". Did he venerate them?

 

[garee]

We need an infallible teaching authority, So we would know exactly what God teaches. And we would want to know exactly what God teaches so we can know the truth. And we want to know the truth, because the truth sets us free. And the truth alone brings happiness. If there is no infallible teaching authority then we don’t know if our interpretation of the Bible is correct. And If our interpretation is wrong that could lead to bad decisions which bring under happiness in our life.

God not seen is the infallible teaching authority. As it is written is another way of saying sola scriptura. The word "it" in as "it" is written directs the believer to the understanding coming from God Not seen .The one source of all Christian faith.

Three times in Mathew 4 when Lucifer challenged the Son of man on which authroity he would trust . Jesus who came not to do His own will was given words from the father and as a prophet sent as the chief apostle declare it as "it" is written to establish the law of faith as the one and only source.

Remember the word of God which works in all believers is alive an active it as it is written it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart of God who as Emanuel dwells in new creatures (Christians .

Because it is alive it works in the believer to both will and perform His good pleasure. it gives us commandments and empowers us to carry them out . Like 2 Timothy . Again lovingly commanded us to study in order that we might seek His approval of faith .

Its not just a good suggestion or philosophical theory to study in order to seek His approval.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The alternative to going beyond as "it" is written is the cause of the fall Mankind seeking the approval of the voice of a stranger. In affect saying; Thou shall not surely die look at me and live who needs the faith that alone comes from hearing God not seen . And the glory of the Father left . Mankind having corrupted the Way the Truth the Spirit of life by seeking the approval of another voice. .

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
.