Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

[Charlie7399]

And the Anglicans, Methodists, Lutheran and Reformed for 1500 years.

Your posts just reminded me that I should try to be as nice as possible to the folks around here, so thanks

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That was a mistake on my part. This is also true of the Orthodox. I tend to lump them in with the Catholic Church when debating protestants.

The invisable church and the visable is crucial to understanding and denial of one leads to worship of the other.

 

[Thursday]

Wrong. Those Churches explicitly rejected the Church Jesus started.

By that measure you could claim than any heretical movement over the centuries is part of the Church Jesus started.

 

[mark46]

You will keep believing that for as long as you deny the church that God claims and replace it with the one that man made

Here on TT, almost everyone accepts a visible Church. We reject the anarchy of the early days with no accepted Scripture and no accepted doctrine, with so many independent views of the faith. We also reject the situation today with so many who reject the Church and have only the Scripture (well the books given to them by the Church) and their own interpretations.

 

[Thursday]

The inviusable church and the visable is crucial to understanding and denial of one leads to worship of the other.

The Church Jesus started is quite visible. It is alive and growing by the millions each year.

 

[mark46]

Wrong. Those Churches explicitly rejected the Church Jesus started.

The Orthodox also specifically reject the Latin understanding of the universal Church.

 

[Thursday]

The Orthodox also specifically reject the Latin understanding of the universal Church.

True, but unlike the others listed it was united to the Catholic Church for 1000 years.

In addition, the differences were not so much doctrinal as political.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Wrong. Those Churches explicitly rejected the Church Jesus started.

They rejected manmade doctrine get it straight and quit associating yourself with those who wish to anihalate everyone who doesn't buy into your pride.

 

[mark46]

The Church Jesus started is quite visible. It is alive and growing by the millions each year.

I guess numbers can be seen as important.

BY that measure, our pentecostal brothers and sisters redoing quite well throughout the world. Should they consider themselves the universal visible Church for that reason?

 

[Charlie7399]

True, but unlike the others listed it was united to the Catholic Church for 1000 years.

That can be said of any church separated from Rome.

In addition, the differences were not so much doctrinal as political.

Politics disguised as doctrine, to be more exact.

 

[Thursday]

They rejected manmade doctrine get it straight and quit associating yourself with those who wish to anihalate everyone who doesn't buy into your pride.

Which man made doctrine?

 

[Thursday]

That can be said of any church separated from Rome.




Politics disguised as doctrine, to be more exact.

I don't think you can make that case for protestants whose whole purpose was a rejecting of the Church.

I agree with your second point!

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Which man made doctrine?

obsulutions was the beginning of the end not to mention the "heresays" of earlier times that are now accepted as truths

 

[Thursday]

I guess numbers can be seen as important.

BY that measure, our pentecostal brothers and sisters redoing quite well throughout the world. Should they consider themselves the universal visible Church for that reason?

That wasn't the question.

I was responding to the claim that there is no visible Church.

 

[Thursday]

obsulutions was the beginning of the end not to mention the "heresays" of earlier times that are now accepted as truths

I don't know what you mean. Could you name one man made doctrine of the early Church that the protestants rejected?

 

[Charlie7399]

I don't think you can make that case for protestants whose whole purpose was a rejecting of the Church.

Reformation, not rejection. In Luther's case, at least. And unless you truly and utterly believe that the Roman church in the 1500s didn't have a mountain of problems, I don't see why you would have a problem with that.

 

[mark46]

True, but unlike the others listed it was united to the Catholic Church for 1000 years.

In addition, the differences were not so much doctrinal as political.

Yes, they were. And the differences were doctrinal. The Roman Patriarch declared himself as the one patriarch, changed the Creed (after the Council agreed that this could not be done, and added required dogma. Orthodox and Latin Catholics are close, but we should be careful enough to understand that there are dogmatic differences. For example, many Catholics and Orthodox except that the Bishop Of Rome, first among equal patriarchs, holds the same power and authority now as he did in 787, no more, no less. Many Catholics disagree. All Orthodox patriarchs except Moscow agree, but many Orthodox disagree.

 

[Thursday]

Yes, they were. And the differences were doctrinal. The Roman Patriarch declared himself as the one patriarch, changed the Creed (after the Council agreed that this could not be done, and added required dogma. Orthodox and Latin Catholics are close, but we should be careful enough to understand that there are dogmatic differences. For example, many Catholics and Orthodox except that the Bishop Of Rome, first among equal patriarchs, holds the same power and authority now as he did in 787, no more, no less. Many Catholics disagree. All Orthodox patriarchs except Moscow agree, but many Orthodox disagree.

There was nothing new or unique about the leadership role of the successor of Peter.

The doctrinal differences were trivial. Scripture is quite clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, for example. That addition to the Creed fits with scripture and Church teaching, but it seems to have been used as a wedge rather than being a true doctrinal red flag.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I don't know what you mean. Could you name one man made doctrine of the early Church that the protestants rejected?

Can you name doctrine of those who died for truth by the hands of those who denied aspects of truth rather than accept what the catholic church demanded. Because if you can't then you have no idea what your talking about.

 

[mark46]

I don't know what you mean. Could you name one man made doctrine of the early Church that the protestants rejected?

This is a critical understanding to have. My guess is that many Catholics do NOT have this understanding. From 1500 until now, we have been dealing with an internal struggle within the Western Church. Certainly traditional Christians believed and believe in the teachings of the early Church. After all, that is a requirement of calling yourself a Christian here on CF. We are all Nicene Christians, accepting the Creed of the early Church.