Does it matter what denomination you are a part of?


Yeah it’s sort of a devil’s advocate thing I guess


Sorry, I must not be speaking clearly. My only point was if there wasn’t an authoritative Church present to make sure the scriptures were copied correctly by the scribes then we have no way of knowing if what we have today are what was originally written. No biggie, this was just a point I was trying to present we can move on.

I don’t think we read these documents through the same lens, because I am not seeing what you claim here.

They don’t (and more importantly how could they) refute scripture using scripture alone? If that were remotely possible we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Did you read the entire document?

In #1 the presbyters say… And these things which we have learned we allege. They are proving their position of authority by what was given to them, the proper interpretation of scripture, not from what they read. Then in the next sentence they use that handed down authority to expel him from the Church.

In #2 we are shown that this person is using the scriptures alone to deny the Trinity. It’s a back and forth interpretation battle that gets no where.

In #3 he tells us…The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question… Notice he doesn’t say the only way. It makes sense that he is dealing with a misinterpretation of scripture so he wants to go with scripture.

#7 was awesome because FROM SCRIPTURE ALONE, we have definitive proof that denomination does matter.

He has Himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples, The glory which You gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that You have sent me. What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition.

From scripture alone he tells us in order to abide by Jesus words to be ONE means to have unity ON EVERYTHING, he says in the exact same way the Father has Unity with the Son. Right here he is proving from scripture alone that there is no denominations there is only One Church that agrees on everything.



You are reading to much into this text. When he says “from no other source” he isn’t saying everything we need to know about the Christian Faith comes from no other source. He is making a claim about this one doctrine. I have no problem with this, never said you can’t use the Scriptures to gain knowledge. All I am saying is you need the teaching authority to even be able to utilize that one source.

I would further argue when he says…“will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God” He is speaking of the teaching authority of the Church and what was handed down. Not what we learn on our own apart from the Church. This is what the entire document is about Noetus picked up the scriptures and decided to teach himself apart from the Catholic Church.

The final sentence there tells us it is not by our own will or mind by by being taught the way Jesus has chosen for us to be taught. Jesus never chose the Bible He chose Apostles and disciples. He chose for them to teach us not for us to grab what they wrote and start telling people this is what they meant. Seriously are we Christians really that arrogant? None of us met the Apostles how can we claim to know what they meant?

Reread this last sentence. It says according to the tradition of the apostles. This is the main point I am trying to make. Unless Hippolytus can prove to Noetus that his interpretation is according to the handed down Oral Tradition of the Apostles then he knows he will get no where. He even repeats it again in 17. He is outright telling Noetus to get in line with the Catholic Church.

Yes I do. The real question though is do you actually believe what he has to say here is authoritative or are you just posting it trying to go for a gotcha moment?

Because as you know as a third century Bishop of Rome he also used scripture to prove there is only One Catholic (United in Mind) Church of Christ as shown above. He also used scripture alone to prove that Jesus Christ instituted the Papacy. He even lashed out against the Pope for failing to make a quicker decision against the Modalists by calling the Pope an incompetent man, unworthy to rule the Church.

See this is the point that I am trying to make. You claim Hippolytus proves all we need is scripture. Yet the very same man uses the Scripture to prove the papacy and that there is only ONE Church. How can you claim he is correct on scripture alone but wrong that the Church should be united in One Mind and that here on earth the Pope is in charge of Christ’s Church?

God Bless


Christian, Catholic, Lutheran, Jew, protestant, Muslim, atheist, we are ALL brothers and sisters on this tiny pale blue dot in the universe and should respect and be kind while we tolerate other’s beliefs or lack thereof. So in the scheme of things it doesn’t matter one bit, what matters are your actions and words and how you treat your fellow man and woman.



It would be the greatest insult to allow someone to continue to worship something I know to be absolutely false in the name of “tolerance” and “love” when I know that they can have the infinite love of God and the source and fullness of all truth.


So are you saying they should not be allowed to worship how or what they want? How would you stop them from doing this then if it is an insult to them?


No. But I think we should evangelize and try to convert them.


Where do you draw the line at evangelizing and converted them? If they say no you should never try to force your beliefs on others. Just look at that missionary who died recently.


There is no line. Ideally, one should lead to another. I think what you may be really asking is where do I draw the line between evangelizing and proselytizing, and that line is drawn at force. Catholicism may contain the fullness of truth, but wrongfully forcing someone to believe in it does not make it right.


scripture yes. It is NOT the sole place
The writers of the NT were all in the Church they were building and writing to. The household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Tim 3:15. The Church that canonized 27 NT books, + 46 OT books as well = 73 books. The one Church Jesus established on Peter and those in union with Peter. The Catholic Church


Yes, the church is the “assembly of believers” or “called out ones” or “God’s people”. All of “God’s People” make up the household of God. Not just Catholics.


I am curious how reformed deal with this question:

Is Christ part of the Church?
If so, what is his relationship to the whole body of believers,
and what is his relationship to the scriptures?

We are hearing that the Church is a subject of scripture, and this begs the question above.


I’m not saying that Hippolytus said all we need is scripture. I’m saying that he saw scripture as the way we identify what is actual “traditions/teachings of the apostles” and what is “traditions/teachings of men (who claim their teaching is from the apostles)”.

However, the entire passage was an attempt to show that the early church used scripture, even before a formal canon, to defend the faith against gnostics and others who “taught another gospel”.

From several history books I’ve read say that the Gnostics claimed a “Special knowledge” that was passed on to them orally from the apostles. The scriptures were one of the main ways the early church countered the claims of the gnostics. They both had “Oral Tradition” but the church had clear teachings from writings to back up their “oral tradition”. This in effect, became sola scriptura, because the Scriptures became the way “oral tradition” was to be discerned. Sola Scriptura doesn’t say that there wasn’t an oral tradition. It says that oral tradition became subject to the scriptures because oral tradition can be claimed by anyone to be anything. The Holy Scriptures became the “rule of faith”.

Things that were accepted were what was “established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.”

For example, when the Arians claimed that their “Tradition” didn’t included the Trinity. Gregory of Nyssa responded with the following:

What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words. (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius.)

That is the practice of sola scriptura in a nutshell. The scripture is the umpire when different claims are made. That doesn’t mean people, or even the leadership of the church, are going to accept what the scriptures teach, just as the Arians didn’t. But the scriptures are still “the umpire”.


If you would

Please show me where

  1. people get the idea that God approves all the divisions we see from His Church, the Catholic Church?.
  2. people think there are no consequences from God for such divisions for those in those divisions

and the validation for this comes from?


I don’t think God approves of all the divisions we see in the catholic (universal) church. I think they are a consequence of our sinful, stubborn, prideful and willful natures. I also think they are a result of those in authority abandoning the gospel, becoming corrupt, and being tyrannical.

Some churches split because someone says “I’m in charge” and the people go “not your not”.
Some churches split because someone says “I know better and people follow”
Some churches split because the church leadership says “Thus sayeth the Lord” and the people recognize it is a teaching of men instead a teaching of Christ.
Some churches split because the leadership is abusing the flock and not being held accountable so the flock forms a new congregation to get away from the abuse.
Some churches split when the church abandons the gospel for cultural and social acceptance.

I believe the Lord grieves when any of those things happen. But I do believe His prayer of unity will be answered one day. It will be the day we all stand before the Lord and all mysteries are revealed and we all rest in Christ and His love and mercy.


I disagree. I would be willing to go with he saw scripture as A TOOL to identify the apostles teachings. But to outright say he saw scripture “as the way” is to infer it is the only way. You are saying the exact same thing I said by dressing it up in a pretty bow.

Simple question if you don’t believe all we need is scripture then what else can we use to identify the actual teachings of the Apostles? Because as I already pointed out on this thread if I use the scriptures and point to John 6 that says we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to abide in him. I point out that every single person, including the disciples took Jesus literally but you say that isn’t literal. Well what do we do now? How do we know what the Apostles actually taught? If we can’t find out on this one subject then this same scenario can be applied to every verse of the Bible.

I’m not against the early Church using the scriptures all I am pointing out is he outright points to the teaching of the Apostles handed down to him as the reasoning behind his interpretation being the correct one.

If you would go back and read the original writings on the subject you would see that yes they did use scripture. However, they used interpretations that they showed are backed by the faith of the Church throughout the whole world. Go back through the writings at some point in the writings they always appeal to the Church as the basis of their scriptural interpretation.

It blows my mind that this isn’t common sense. We can argue until the cows come home, unless one of us can show that our interpretation was the interpretation handed on from the Apostles then it is an infinite loop. If you and I, in these more civilized times with absolutely nothing to gain personally, can’t come to an agreement why would you believe these heretics would back down if a personal interpretation is all that was used in the battle?

The one that makes the claim must provide the evidence. Where did the early Church proclaim that the scriptures are the rule of faith?


Let me say you are reading way to much into that sentence. If you look up the definition of an umpire it is a person charged with officiating a game and enforcing the rules. So what does that tell us? It tells us that the umpire is charged by someone or something. Meaning there needs to be an institution behind the umpire that tells the umpire what the rules are and how the rules are to be enforced. The institution is the one that takes the heat and reinforces what the umpire has to say when he makes the call. It is not sola scriptura in a nutshell because from my understanding sola scriptura has no one institution backing it’s calls. The person interpreting the scripture is the umpire and the institution.

Also, did you read the entire document? I liked the part that says…

If, then, they (the scriptures) do not deny that the Holy Spirit has community with the Father and the Son in those attributes which, in their sense of special excellence, are piously predicated only of the Divine nature, what reason is there to pretend that He is excluded from community in this only, wherein it was shown that, by an equivocal use, even devils and idols share?

Right here it is telling us that the same attributes for the Holy Spirit cannot be argued from scripture, however it also tells us that it is not denied in scripture. In a way he is telling us here that the Umpire cannot make the call. However, at the same time the Umpire isn’t calling it either way. He goes on to reason his way through scripture to show why it is logical. Which is exactly what the Catholic Church does with many of Her dogmas.

So my question is why is it OK in this case for the Catholic Church to reason through the Trinity but She is accused of adding to the Gospel message when she reasons through other tenants of the faith such as purgatory?

I have no problem with the Scriptures being an umpire because an umpire only makes the calls they don’t define the meaning of the calls.

God Bless


He condemns division. Note I changed “in” to “from”. The Catholic Church is still one. Those who are divided from her are no longer the Catholic Church.


And those who are divided from the Catholic Church and won’t return, are still in that condition you mention.


and All examples of those who in effect , are “outside”

Yet a qualification is needed

Judgement DAY is NOT a Universalism / Apocatastasis event. A permanent division ALSO occurs at this event. Since As Jesus said, few are saved, so few go to heaven. So the idea that “ALL” will rest in Christ and His love and mercy" refers specifically then, to the "few".


except I would argue that the Catholic church teaches things of men instead of the teachings of Christ, has at times abused the flock and has, at times become corrupt and tyrannical. In such cases the church (people of God) have a right and duty to reject the authority and hold the church leadership accountable. If the church leadership will not yield then the people must form their own communion that is faithful to the teaching of Christ, free of corruption and free of tyranny.

By “We all” I am speaking of those who are new creations in Christ, are indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit, and are adopted sons and daughters of God. Not all of mankind.


Of course it matters. God wants all of us to be reunited with Him for all eternity.

But, at the same time it doesn’t matter. God will call us from where we are.

I think back to old testament times… when the many Jewish sects were awaiting the Messiah. When Jesus did come, he didn’t take only from the Jews. He didn’t call only on the Essenes.

He took from Gallilee, Samaria, Judah, Pharisees, Saducees, traditional, even the secular.

So while I think the Catholic Church is the church established by Jesus, because that’s what he revealed to me. I believe he funnels all the baptized through the Church. So whether you’re Southern Baptist or Episcopalian if you’re called you"ll eventually go through the Catholic Church. Either in this life or the next.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit