“Speaking as a Presbyterian, I’ve never in my life heard of a Presbyterian denying Sola Scriptura. What Presbyterian church do you belong to?”
I’m not denying Sola Scriptura. I just find the premise flawed. That doesn’t mean I don’t find the alternative flawed (even more flawed), as well.
On this thread, I’ve been arguing more in terms of a devil’s advocate more than anything. I’m a Protestant with a pretty good knowlege of church history and theology. I just find a lot of passive dismissals of the Catholic Church more than a bit myopic, as these matters can’t be dealt with as flippantly as some have around here.
But for the record, I’m a member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and specifically chose it because I found a much greater emphasis placed on scripture, traditional belief, and missions than PCUSA, for instance.
I will say you most definitely see a progression in time of the scriptures revealing an ever-widening circle of understanding about God. And yes, some changes. For instance, regarding whether a man would be held accountable for the sins of his father. But I just find the concept of divine revelation essentially stopping after the canonization of scripture as far as the church is concerned to be lacking.
That doesn’t mean that I am advocating more scripture be added, but I believe the Catholic Church has the right idea in its recording and emphasis on Church history.
Sound like you have a touch of Pelegianism!
The sure sign of rejecting Sola Scriptura!
All men are in Adam when they are born, so they are spiritually dead.
They need to get into Christ, to receive spiritual life.(Rom.5, 1Cor.15)
If you had followed these discussions, you would have found that no one is passively dismissing Rome.
We articulate the Scriptures quite carefully and fully regarding where Rome strays from the word of God.
I believe the Catholic Church has the right idea in its recording and emphasis on Church history.
I would venture a guess you are an Evangelical Presbyterian of one on that score.