You place quite a bit of trust in this "infallible authority" don't you? But what if this Magesterium of yours doesn't address a specific point? What do you do then? In Post #932, you said:
If there were, some would criticize the Church for being too controlling. You can look at the various systematic theologies as taking pieces of truth and expanding them into one big untruth. That's how heresies are. The Church is big. It's walls are as far out as possible, allowing as much freedom as possible while remaining true to the teachings of Christ to His apostles. She did so over the centuries dealing with heresies and maintaining the universal, catholic, faith. The Church has taken the truths taught by heresies and rejected the untruth they derived from them. The Church has harmonized these truths into its teaching. Within these walls, the individual is free to let Holy Scripture mean what it means to them individually, over time. Scripture if it is Holy in the true sense, has many meanings. This freedom of interpretation is more freedom than that found in, say, Calvinism. The official commentary on the Church's Holy Scriptures is found in its councils' decisions, it's dogmas and creeds. The great majority of Christians, Catholic or not, still hold to the Church's creeds. This, we believe...
So where your Church has determined "creeds", "dogmas" and "doctrines", according to you they leave room for conjecture and freedom of conscience on areas not ruled upon, did I interpret you right?
You have complained that I fail to either read or comprehend your points. Rest assured, I do read all posts on threads I participate. In speaking about the doctrine of sola scriptura, you claim about me "your point was the differences between sola scriptura theologies were not that great", and I still hold to this but please comprehend that these "differences" are not the fault of Scripture's sufficiency, but of the one who reads them and comes to an understanding of them. On many points, Scripture DOES allow flexibility suited to the times, customs, persons, etc. But on the major tenets of the Christian faith, there is unity and if some depart from these, THEY are at fault NOT Scripture.
Tell me, has the Catholic Church made a definitive statement about the reality of dispensations? H. A. Ironside says at the link http://www.gospelhall.org/bible-teaching/ironside--wrongly-dividing-the-word-of-truth/ultra-dispensationalism--chapter-1--what-is-ultra-dispensationalism.html that dispensations:
"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2 Tim. 2: 15).
PAUL'S exhortation to the younger preacher, Timothy, has come home to many with great power in recent years. As a result, there has been a return to more ancient methods of Bible study, which had been largely neglected during the centuries of the Church's drift from apostolic testimony. Augustine's words have had a re-affirmation: "Distinguish the ages, and the Scriptures are plain." And so there has been great emphasis put in many quarters, and rightly so, upon the study of what is commonly known as "dispensational" truth. This line of teaching, if kept within Scriptural bounds, cannot but prove a great blessing to the humble student of the Word of God who desires to know His will or plan in His dealings with men from creation to the coming glory. A careful examination of the volume of Revelation shows that God's ways with men have differed in various ages. This must be taken into account if one would properly apprehend His truth.
The word "dispensation" is found several times in the pages of our English Bible and is a translation of the Greek word "oikonomia." This word, strictly speaking, means "house order." It might be translated "administration," "order," or "stewardship." In each successive age, God gives to men of faith a certain stewardship, or makes known to them a certain order or administration, in accordance with which they are responsible to behave. A dispensation then is a period of time in which God is dealing with men in some way in which He has not dealt with them before. Only when a new revelation from God is given, does a dispensation change. Moreover, there may be degrees of revelation in one dispensation; all, however, having to do with a fuller unfolding of the will of God for that particular age. This was very definitely true in the dispensation of law, from Moses to Christ. We have the various revelations: of Sinai, both the first and second giving of the law; then added instructions during the wilderness years; the covenant with David; and the revelations given to the prophets. The circumstances in which God's people were found changed frequently during this age of law, but the dispensation itself continued from Sinai until Jesus cried, "It is finished." It is important to have this in mind, otherwise the vast scope of an ever unfolding dispensation may be lost sight of, and one might get the idea that every additional revelation of truth in a given age changed the dispensation, whereas it only enlarges it.
I think you could see that the concept of "dispensations" is hardly a new one and, as Ironside states, accepting this truth helps to rightly divide the Word of Truth. The Bible IS God's gift to us that continues to present the infallible and authoritative truths the Apostles learned from Jesus and that the Holy Spirit revealed to them afterwards. The SAME truths they taught the early church and that faithful followers continued to teach. How one was known as faithful to the truth was how close he was to the source of the truth and today we have that same assurance of that source of truth through the divinely-inspired Holy Scriptures. God enscripturated ALL that he desires we know so that we can walk in truth. How we live out that truth every day determines the success or failure we have in growing closer to our Lord and, as the Holy Spirit present within us illuminates the deeper truths of God, we can in turn continue to help others come to the knowledge of the truth.
“but on major tenents, there is unity”
There is unity in the historical, orthodox faith as taught by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that has been here since Jesus established it in 33ad.
now, everyone must believe “baptism” is a major tenent of Christianity. Jesus commanded the Church to teach and baptize in Matthew 28. Peter commanded baptism for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38. Paul was commanded to be baptized and wash away his sins in Acts 22:16. major tenent.
The Church has taught baptismal regeneration since Peter preached on Pentecost. The Church Fathers all teach in baptism we are born again.
is there unity on this doctrine?
there are those today that consider themselves “christian” that reject the Nicene Creed “ we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”
they teach doctrines not found in the NT like saying a “sinners prayer” or “asking Jesus into your heart”
what do these “christians” do with baptism then??
well, since Jesus commanded it, they say it is for a “first act of obedience” or they will say it’s “an outward display of something that has happened already”
none of which is taught anywhere in the NT, it’s all a 16th century tradition of men.
they actually believe no one understood baptism for 16 centuries!
so yes, when someone departs from the unity of the Faith, it is THEY WHO ARE AT FAULT.
Recently, we did the same exercise with salvation by election vs. grace through faith.
These were to prove the point that sola scriptura resulting doctrines are not from the same infallible source, via a performance contradiction. These are large disagreements and variances, that is key to the point that large important variances can not logically be attributed to the same infallible authority.
This is a separate point from how much latitude is allowed in interpretation. The Church's doctrine does not contradict itself in terms of salvation, Christology, the nature of God, etc. So the previous argument is not applicable here.
In the second post you refer to I was addressing the demand by some that the Church have an official interpretation for each line of scripture. It does not, one is free within certain boundaries: so long as one does not teach his/her personal interpretation as official Church interpretation and so long as this personal interpretation does not contradict the teaching of the Church.
The Church is consistent in its belief that God and Holy Scripture can speak to each individual where they are at the moment, this can be subjective and personal, it is not objective and dogmatic. This difference is clearly recognized and treated as such, consistently. This is part of God's grace through Holy Scripture.
What God does not do, the Church teaches, is change who He is, His plan of Salvation, His relationship to man, His grace, etc.
The creeds, confessions, dogma and doctrine do not contradict as they do for those whose doctrine is founded on sola scriptura.
Two different arguments, neither contradicting the other.
thanks for your reply.
AMEN and THANK YOU, bb.