HisServant
New member
Since "church" is not a biblical or early church concept.... you have invalidated your own question.
Is there a true church?
- Thread starter glassjester
- Start date
Cruciform
New member
- First, your claim has already been categorically refuted in Post #30 above.
- Second, which "reformed" believers, exactly? Luther? Zwingli? Calvin? Knox? All of these disagreed with and contradicted one another over the content of Christian doctrine. Result: tens-of-thousands of competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made Protestant sects and denominations, with more being concocted every week. A hopeless chaos of conflicting subjective opinions (traditions) of men.
Again, whose version (opinion) of "reformed doctrine"?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
"Church," "community," "assembly"---take your pick. It would change exactly nothing regarding Catholic ecclesiology. Your point here is entirely irrelevant.
The NT church of God is a spiritual body, not a corporate body. There is no need for parishes, dioceses or any other divisions of the body.
Congregations should meet in homes or even in rental halls to minimize overhead.
God has a reason for creating humans as male and female. He even said to be fruitful and multiply.
The kingdom of God is a family.
There's only one set of theology that is called 'Reformed' and it is Calvinism.
http://www.theopedia.com/reformed-theology
Why? For the simple reason that Luther, even though he constituted many things such as the Five Solas, was still half catholic. Reformed theology is altogether the unadulterated product of the Reformation.
Last edited:
glassjester
Well-known member
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Romanists love to ask questions asked and answered:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4612330#post4612330
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4580080#post4580080
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4612434#post4612434
Apparently, Romanists have difficulty actually reading.
Sigh.
AMR
glassjester
Well-known member
So, if as you claim, sola scriptura does not ensure unity of scriptural interpretation among "the church", then how do you know that your personal interpretation is the 1 correct one, as opposed to one of the millions of incorrect interpretations? It seems statistically unlikely.
Bradley D
Well-known member
Scripture indicates that Jesus and Paul often depended on believers to help with their basic needs.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The claim I have made about visible unity relates to the church. How sola scriptura emerges from my post escapes me.
If you believe sola scriptura means perfect unity of interpretation of Scripture by the church, you would be mistaken. Further, if you believe sola scriptura means "Just Me and My Bible", that's another error. Such a view, with the added "private interpretation" only carries weight with me-and-my-Bible yahoos, who don't believe in any continuity of church in history, and who do not care to evaluate their own positions against the history of interpretation. This is not sola scriptura. In fact, what you are describing is solo scriptura...error. Sola scriptura does not deny the church has real authority, and real interpretive heft. But said authority is ministerial and declarative, not a license to legislate the truth.
I believe it is time for Romanists to convince us, through exegesis, that their church is infallible. The call of the Reformers of sola scriptura was a return to a default position, that the Word of God is that which is God breathed. The ECF were unanimous in asserting that only the Word had infallible authority. Rome denies the formal sufficiency of Scripture, whereas virtually all the ancient fathers affirmed it, both in the east and in the west. The ancient fathers affirmed scriptura ex scripturim explicandum esse (Scripture is to be explained by Scripture). Such expressions abound profusely in the extant writings of the ECF. When the Reformers went back to the Scripture, Rome did not soul search and try to prove, from the Scripture, that their authority structures were infallible. Rather, as they continue to do so today, Rome merely asserts it. The shoe is not on the Protestant's foot in terms of who has the burden of proof in this matter.
So, given all your guffawing about private interpretation, please direct me to Rome's infallible commentary on Scripture. After all, if the Rome's infallible ability to interpret the Scriptures prevents the discord that you Romanists like to note occurs in Protestantism then surely Rome has produced a Bible commentary set that tells its members what the Scriptures teach. Of course, we know the answer here, and it explains why the Romanist apologist has a lot of talk but does not produce anything meaningful by this infallible interpreter.
Whether Romanists argue for a part Scripture, part tradition view of infallible teaching or that Rome is the infallible interpreter of Scripture, the whole system works itself out into sola ecclesia (the church alone). If Rome says it, then that's the interpretation. You aren't even permitted to check the work. If Romanists claim that their church has always believed and held this or that, you aren't even permitted to note the Church Fathers that differed because Rome determines when and who and which council and which parts of all three are tradition and who and when was speaking ex cathedra as a Pope.
In fact, Romanists are not even permitted to obey the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:8-9 who admonishes believers that they are never to depart from the pattern of sound doctrine delivered to them no matter who comes to them with a different Gospel. There is simply no way for the Romanist to obey this command because there is only one source of authority in Romanism—whatever Rome tells you.
AMR
Last edited:
Ben Masada
New member
Is there a true church?
There has never been one. When Paul declared that Christians had been released from the Law as we read in Rom. 7:6, it became obvious that Christianity would be a haven of outlaws.
There has never been one. When Paul declared that Christians had been released from the Law as we read in Rom. 7:6, it became obvious that Christianity would be a haven of outlaws.
False Prophet
New member
John Calvin preached a universal catholic church, and the anabaptists were wrong to stay alone by themselves. Rev 18 says to get out of her my people referring to Babylon the Great "Mother of Harlots." Staying in there kneeling to statues and candles while praying the rosary are damnable sins.
the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Tradition as the word of God (along with Scripture)
the primacy and authority of the Papacy
the intermediate state of purgatory
the hierarchical structure (bishop/priest/deacon) of Christ's Catholic Church
baptismal regeneration
verbal confession of sins to a priest
a 73-book biblical canon
the use of sacred images and objects in worship and devotion
the invocation of the intercession of past Saints
apostolic succession
the role of good works (not "works of the law") in salvation
paedobaptism
This list will also damn your souls to hell.
the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Tradition as the word of God (along with Scripture)
the primacy and authority of the Papacy
the intermediate state of purgatory
the hierarchical structure (bishop/priest/deacon) of Christ's Catholic Church
baptismal regeneration
verbal confession of sins to a priest
a 73-book biblical canon
the use of sacred images and objects in worship and devotion
the invocation of the intercession of past Saints
apostolic succession
the role of good works (not "works of the law") in salvation
paedobaptism
This list will also damn your souls to hell.
glassjester
Well-known member
Alright. I just picked one. It's highlighted above.
Why do you think that particular action will damn a soul to Hell?
Do you have evidence from Scripture of your claim? Or is your claim based on your own personal, extra-Biblical beliefs?
glassjester
Well-known member
Proof?
By the way, do you not see a BIG problem with using extra-Biblical sources to disprove the necessity of extra-Biblical sources?
Do you mean the sound doctrine delivered to them, and upheld by the Church, the pillar of truth?
So why follow the "departeurs," Luther, or Calvin, or Joseph Smith, or David Koresh?
HisServant
New member
The fact that doctrine has 'developed' in the Romanist church proves that they never have at any time been a pillar of truth... they are the religion of 'add ons'... so much has been added on that it no longer resembles the teachings of the Apostles.
brewmama
New member
It hasn't "developed" in the Orthodox Church, yet you treat it the same.
Cruciform
New member
Yes, that is how the technical language eventually developed. However, I'm referring to the personal theologies of the "reformers" themselves, that is, the particular belief systems manufactured by the principle leaders of the so-called Protestant Reformation.
So, again:
"...whose version (opinion) of 'reformed doctrine'?"
Your answer appears to be "Calvin's." Is that correct?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
glassjester
Well-known member
Why can't doctrine develop?
Most of the central doctrines that most all Protestants have in common, such as the Five Solas, were developed by Martin Luther I believe.
John Calvin perfected those doctrines, whereas Luther chose to remain a lot like the Roman Church- going into a Lutheran church is a whole lot like going into a Catholic one.
This is the reason why Calvinism boasts the name 'Reformed', because it is the most substantially Protestant belief structure. There is a strong lean on predestination, stronger than Luther's, which strips most of Catholic ideology altogether. It's shown most in TULIP, the common set of doctrine among Calvinists.