All anyone has to do is look at the first post at the start of this thread to understand the motives behind most of the responses we get when disputing "canned" replies that so often is "all they got". I really am astonished that there are some people who actually assume we can be silenced by an appeal to the "authority" of the Church and we will relent of all our objections because the Church has spoken. This "three-legged stool", that some insist is wholly logical and sufficient to address all questions pertaining to the truths of the faith, would have had to of always been there for it to be workable. Yet we know the same model was there when Jesus came and was no more effective than the one that exists today in theory.
Like you have stated before, there WAS a magesterium during the time of Christ with the Apostles, but it was that of the "Seat of Moses" and was comprised of the religious leaders within Judaism. We know that they ALSO had their "traditions" in addition to the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. But this "three-legged stool" was no more the true authority than the one that claims the same role today. Just as Jesus reprimanded those leaders for imposing their traditions and authority ABOVE the word of God, so we do today as did the Reformers of yesteryear. Whenever ANY group tries to usurp the authority of God's word, God makes sure others step in and steer the ship back on course. God's word is above the mechanizations of men.
The Church is said to be the foundation, support and upholder of the truth, NOT the inventor of the truth. And whenever the truth is superseded in favor of the traditions and pride of men and the Gospel is perverted, God sends those who WILL lead in truth. That is why you and I were able to STILL hear the truth and receive it and why many here give the same testimony as we do. We are allowed this platform to speak the truth of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit is who will open eyes and hearts to understand it. That's all we can do and I hope you are encouraged to continue speaking up for the grace of God and against false teachings that lead to the broad path of destruction. Jesus got plenty of flack for doing it, we should expect nothing less.
Well said, for as often said, Christianity began in dissent from those who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6).
And who alone could lay claim to having historical decent, and whose conditional (as submission to man always is) authority the Lord upheld. (Mt. 23:2 etc.) And under which writings were est. as being Scripture and Truth was preserved, which we are told we need an assuredly infallible magisterium for, but which they were not.
But like Rome in presuming a level of assured veracity and authority above what is written, they challenged the unsanctioned (by them) authority of the Itinerant Preach of Nazareth who reproved them by Scripture for teaching as doctrines mere tradition of the elders, (Mk. 7:3-16) and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And thus Truth and the believing remnant was preserved, as God has often raised up true men of God from without the formal magisterium to reprove it, and thus the church began and thus it has been preserved.
And the authority of such men of God is not dependent upon magisterial sanction, though such are sppsd to confirm them, but is established by conformity to Scripture in text and in power, with Scripture itself being essentially established as Divine due to its Heavenly qualities and attestation, which enabled further complimentary additions in conflation with it, and in principle provides for recognizing a canon of such.
And as Scripture abundantly substantiates that it is the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims, so the assurance of the authenticity of church of the living God is not based upon it infallibly declaring you the OTC, so that its proofs are assuredly valid, but upon Scriptural substantiation. “For the kingdom of God is not in word [self-declaration], but in power. “ (1 Corinthians 4:20)
May i and all who are in the body of Christ manifest this much better.
“”The Church is said to be the foundation, support and upholder of the truth, NOT the inventor of the truth.””
..And how do you say you’re part of the upholder of Truth within that Church and remain in unity with other protestants who differ from you and band in unity if they are part of the Church who is upholder of truth? You all can’t be right! Christianity is not buddhism with many truths
By your statement You seem to know very well that there can only be ONE truth and ONE Church.
Why don’t you proclaim this and argue with someone like metmom and others who differ from you in the same fashion you argue with Catholics since you claim to know the Church you believe in holds the truth?
Could it be you are not confident that you don’t really know that the Church you believe in holds the truth?Thus, it would seem to make sense why you don;t have a problem with the differences of beliefs between you and someone like metmom and others because you might not really be sure of what you believe in?
Perhaps you should think deeply about what you write and what is being said,dear sister.
And as has been shown, contrary to what is often portrayed, though both evangelicals and Catholics have historically held to certain core truths, they both allow and see varying degrees of disagreement on other issues, the difference only being a matter of degrees, as even Rome admits noninfallible teachings may contain deficiencies (Donum Veritatis) and error (if not salvific according to her), and both which class a Catholic teaching belongs in as well as aspects of the meaning of such can see dispute.
And on the level of the “laity” Catholics overall show less fidelity and unity than evangelicals (though both are in decline) on many core moral and doctrinal issues.