Virgin Mary

......... wrote:

I don't think that's unusual given there a couple of billion Christians.

So what happens next? A chunk of the church sees one thing. Another chunk of the church sees another thing. Both sides can't be right.

What is going on?

Then that's not quite sola scriptura, quite a few sola scriptural Christians tell me that unless something is explicitly written in scripture it's not to be believed. They go a bit silent or try a diversion when asked where is the doctrine of sola scriptura, or when they are asked what does scripture say about faith alone, or when asked to explain how logically you can have having more than one sola.

It's sola scriptura by another, rationally arrived at route. So, you've encountered finally, a sola scripturalist who has an argument for their position

I don't agree something need be explicit in order to be believed and whatever about fundamentalists, many are happy to go with overall thrust of scripture rather than explicit declarations.

You can, for example, see a trend/thrust when it comes to those who are saved/see Christ for who he is. What is it about one person and not another that contributes to their salvation. What is the common denominator both in scripture and in life?

Well, all appear to be in desperate need, of one sort or another, and all recognize that about themselves (e.g. the thief on the cross). Thus is a mode of salvation obtained, without there being an explicit declaration on the matter. We can explain Abraham saved (sans Christianity), we can explain Christian countries, we can explain those of other religions and none. A common, single mode of salvation. Completely without the need for the RC church (or it's fudges on the question of "what about those who've never heard of Christ)

I'm not sure what the problem is with more than one sola. Scripture being the only authority regarding where it is we go for insight doesn't clash with faith being the only means by which we are saved.

The only thing you're offending by using such Paisleyism's is yourself. Christ spend quite a bit of time in his Father's house. There's 24 Churches that make up the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches, communion with Saint Peter's successor, including the Latin Church in west. Christians have followed pretty much the same format of worship since at least the Didache of the first Century.

I was going on the rather potted and appalling history of the church. Objectively horrific - which is not to say every member of it is tainted. Then there is the replication of OT Judaism: a priesthood between man and God whereas Christ replaced that with himself.

I'm not inclined to suppose great age an indicator of validity. The church was going off course from the start judging by scripture. You seem to building on a foundation of assumption: that what was done at the start and carried on confirms that the start was uncorrupted.

There is something very different about two or three gathered in his name and the structure seen since.

Certainly NT writings themselves don't give a clear indication that what is claimed about a.s. is indeed what was intended.

The "On this Rock-ists" won't be thanking you for that.

So, which basis for supposing a.s. We have Christ appointing apostles without there being succession indicated. We have the apostles (who are demonstrably non-infallible) replacing Judas upon which Christ appoints Paul. We don't know whether apostles can birth apostles, scripturally.

From whence then, the idea of a.s. in your mind. Longevity of an idea carries no merit in itself: something starting off crooked simply gets more crooked as time passes.

Indeed, how would survive if everyone in human history since the first century could just interpret scripture in any way it suited them?

That's one extreme. Another extreme would be for people to do as you do and follow what strikes them to be a good, natural .. but ultimately incorrect path. The path that can't but bring the corporate / politics / power.

Putting all your eggs in one basked (of interpretation) necessitates confidence that the basket is a sound one. That the church simply went the way it did + it seems like a good idea + lots of churches when in that direction ... does not satisfy me. Especially given scriptural indications of the churches ability to head off in the wrong direction.

You say the only alternative is for people to interpret any way that suits them. This does them a disservice and is another indicator that you haven't gotten the notion of your own supremacy in what you believe. You are supposing your own evaluation points: the church started this way / seems like a good idea / multiple churches add weight to veracity are sound and that anything else is people suiting themselves.

It would be better to suppose others genuinely seeking just as you are. And that they don't interpret scripture to suit themselves, rather to uncover what God might have to say.

You might suppose too that God might have a hand in things. Not so much to ensure that a person has a comprehensive, sound theology. But that they have revealed to them what they need for holiness, support, comfort, assurance.

I'd remind you that Christianity isn't the beginning of people being saved. God got along just fine before Christ ever came along and we can presume he can do so today. Not just with those who interpret themselves but those who have never heard of Jesus Christ.

I understand the good idea gig. But it's strikes me of man - not something that God is confined to operating by.

How would law and order function today if there were no learned judges to rule on the centuries of the legal system, and every layperson, solicitor, and barrister could interpret the law any way they say fit, with no regard to any previous rulings ?

See my points above about God and man. If there is no need for a priesthood anymore and the communing is directly between man and God then a man seeking God ought not worry. And a man who isn't seeking isn't fooled into thinking all is okay.

Have you no issue with the vast swathes of people who have absolutely no leaning towards things God other than they have a box ticked labelling them Catholic at a time when that was done on industrial scale? If it is the case that a person must be born again other than by infant baptism / communion / confirmation then the churches who hold as the RC church does are on a very sticky wicket. They might have massive numbers and an impressive corporate organisation. But their flock is but a tiny fraction of the total number of members.

Indeed and you'll probably be rabidly anti Catholic until the day your ready for solid food, and centuries of spiritually, Church councils, and consideration by theologians and saints much more qualified in both spirit and scripture than you or I.

Like I say, I'm not impressed by the centuries aspect of it - a crooked shoot isn't rendered a straight tree by mere age. Ought I turn to Judaism?


There are theologians and saints aplenty to offer intelligent, compelling views (given all believers are saints!). It is, as ever, a question for the individual to weigh up the evidence on offer and go in the direction they see fit. You have plumped for your choice for the reasons given. I find those reasons weak: compelling if looking at things from a man-perspective, but forgetting of the direct connection between man and God, one that circumvents the need for what would otherwise make for perfect sense.

I don't look down my nose at it,

But you do seem to persist in considering a strawman version of personal interpretation (one in which there are as many fundamentally different theologies as there are individuals). And you do seem to ignore that your own conclusions about where to find truth is a personally arrived at one.

I like to read about biology, physics, medicine, and a wide range of subjects, but at the end of the day, when it comes to matter of importance, I'm no authority on any of them, and I'll have the wit to take heed of the doctors and surgeons in the world.

But first you have to convince yourself that they are the authority. There is good reason to beware white coat syndrome. There are crap, ungifted doctors and surgeons around as in any other field in life. You have also got a profession influenced by pharma, influenced by conservatism which is closed to alternatives. I'm not dissing medicine in toto, but one does have to thread carefully and plough own furrow.

As ever, the question of whether the RC (or church as you describe it) is an authority at all. That is the very first question to be answered.

I was willing to get my hands dirty and look hard, past the people, you are not.

That's not quite true. Granted, the RC church wasn't going to be my first port of call but that's not entirely my fault. Just as was the case with sola scriptura, its a case of finding something that fits and automatically excluding (without necessarily going in depth into it) that which manifestly doesn't. Do I have to investigate every religion under the sun if once finding a supremely elegant solution?

A priesthood? Infant baptism? The church structure? They are understood as polar opposites to the New Testament scheme (does not the modern priesthood identikit, in essence, the Old Testament convenant?). I'm sure I've got caricatured versions of RC doctrine going, this largely because I'm more interested in ploughing a profitable furrow than better understanding one already considered hopelessly off the mark.

This is not to say that there aren't bona fide Christians in the Church. There will be, just as there is and isn't in all the other denominations. Thank God we are not saved by our theology!

Granted trying to refute them and the centuries of knowledge and the centuries of council's discussions and rulings. . . bit presumptuous looking back, but it turned out to be very educational).

They say your pathology informs your theology. I tend towards rebellion in any case - making it supremely difficult to swallow the idea of an argument from supposed authority (my modification). The authority is nowt until such time as it established itself. Starting position. And a no means unhealthy one.

The evil one continues to throw everything he has at the Catholic Church, and leaves the non Catholic ones alone.

Your having another hinault moment!! The Catholic church has brought it's current woes upon it's own head - the abuse scandal is hardly confined to a couple of satan-possessed priests.

And I can assure you that satan works against Christians everywhere. If sufficient number to call themselves a church, then into that church his tendrils will creep..

Unless *unthinkable* you're supposing Christians must be RC?



Question: you seem to suppose God in his necessity ensured a steady stream of apostles to keep His message alive and well down through the ages. Yet he doesn't seem to display much interest in the character of those who obtain to the highest position such that the church has such a potted history.

How is this harmonised?

......... wrote: »

Logically did you think everyone could be right ? Or just you ?

Logically, not all can be right. Logically, I (along with millions of others) can be right on matters which we share view and the RC church can be wrong. Logically I can be right where no one else shares my view (but I don't see that as probable)

What do you do with the fact that there are two very different views, each supported by many?

I haven't seen your argument for it yet, but if you like to lay out each of your premises logically and state the conclusion that your claim follows from them, I might take a look at it.

The argument has been presented: start with scripture > don't find anything in scripture which indicates scripture + and so, by default > remain with scripture only.

There is good reason (from scripture) to suppose that man would go spannering on things and form a Religion from Christianity. That is his ever-long bent.

Or rather self contradictorily, when it comes Protestant claims they are happy to do so.

Anyway, your point about what some s.s's do doesn't apply to by any means all. There is, in Protestantism, a propensity to simply follow what the leaders say, as in RC-ism. So you get "da Byble sayz it, ah buleeve it, dat settles it" mode of discussion.

What so called fudge would that be ? The one where you assume the conclusion and then beg the question ?

The fudge arises with a "we believe that God in his mercy will do what is right". Of course that need be said, because it's not tenable to condemn all but a very narrow group who can't be saved by the mechanism considered applicable by the RC church.

As in science, a theology is a good one when it accommodates the observations. When it doesn't / can't then it's not a good theology. What about those who've never heard of Christ? Well, surely God in his mercy...

I would be equally critical of "Protestant" theology's which suppose you must believe in your heart and confess with you mouth. What about those who never heard of Christ? What about Abraham?

It doesn't pass even the basic rules of grammar, never mind logic. What about Christ alone ? What has man or scripture anything to do with it if it's Christ alone ?

Scripture alone has to do with the only authoritative source for God's communication with man. Christ alone has to do with in whom salvation is to be found alone. Faith has to do with how this salvation in Christ is to be accessed alone. Three sola's can co-exist. No problem..

No, your're going on an ad hom about people, and the correct statistic is is very few members of the Church are or ever were "tainted".

The church is the people. Christ, a person, the cornerstone of. Very few indeed off the total, considerably more of those in a position of power.

Two strawmen in one sentence ? not very impressive. Firstly, there is no one between man and God, secondly Christ appointed apostles and they in turn appointed successors.

If you need someone for access to elements of God (the Eucharist, confession, marriage, interpretation, etc. etc) then you have someone necessarily between man and God. Just like the old testament priesthood. You might consider it justified by virtue of A.S. but it is there.

You seem to want your apostolic cake and eat it. God appoints apostles ongoing but they don't have any function in a between-man-and-God way. Is that what your saying?

That's not what I posted.

Okay. Can I take it you don't hold great age adding to validity?

I afraid the only one going on assumption here is you. At what point do you claim it was corrupted ? And back up the claim with some substantive details please.

We have scriptural evidence of the churches propensity to go off course. This prevents us from automatically assuming that decisions the early church takes (as to direction and set up) are correct.

That's the only point I'm making. If someone want to suppose the (early) church course the correct one, then the onus is on them to establish that - given scriptural evidence preventing this being simply assumed.


Oops gotta go, will get back to this later...