But you can’t create doctrines that cannot be validated against scripture. The catechism as I stated in another post claims the church came into the belief that Mary was sinless. How? When? How do we validate this claim? Given how significant that is I find it hard to believe scripture does not highlight that. It gets twisted and pulled out of some scriptural verses that have nothing to do with it. Scripture does not plainly say Mary was without sin. It does tell us Jesus was without sin though.
To say the church is defining something it always has believed just doesn’t hold water. A group of people can believe something but it may not be true. People believed the world was flat for a very long time. Defining a doctrine that states the world is flat because people believed it is not proof the world is flat. We have to be able to validate the claim against something. This is the purpose of scripture when it comes to our faith.
As to only having the writings of the Apostles to go by–that too is just not the case. Jesus never ordered the writing of the NT, you know. He didn’t need anyone’s writings to ensure his Gospel would be taught in the fullness of truth–he assigned that task to men–the Apostles.
Not entirely true. Jesus promised he would send a helper in the Holy Spirit that would lead them into the truths Jesus taught. The Holy Spirit led the Apostles to write Gospels and letters etc. So to say Jesus never commanded them to write things down is false. HE did this through the Holy Spirit. This is an old argument that just doesn’t work. The RC admits they believe scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
They, in turn, assigned it to others by ordaining them to follow in their footsteps and teach orally, as well as with the written word.
The book of Acts documents the spread of the church without Apostolic Ordainment. The Holy Spirit in several cases sent men out to preach. It’s impossible to think that every church was founded by an Apostle or a successor. If you study church history you will understand this better. Many churches including the initial church in Rome were not founded by an Apostle or a successor. The church in Rome was believed to be founded by Jews who attended Pentecost and heard Peter’s sermon. It already existed by the time Peter or Paul got to Rome.
Many churches held worship in their homes because people lived way out in the country side. They were not successors of Apostles. They only heard about Christ by getting a copy of the Gospel of Mark or Matthew.
Jesus promised he would lead his Church into all truth. Either he meant that or he didn’t.
You misinterpret this part of scripture. Jesus didn’t say HE would lead them into the truth in a future sense implying new teachings. The exact wording of this verse shows Jesus promising that the things HE taught would be brought to their memory. Not a revelation of a new belief.
If he didn’t, then no one has the truth as he meant us to have it. Do you really think he would have left us to our own devices like children set free in a desert to fend for ourselves? He wasn’t so careless or so uncaring as that.
I believe the truth comes from scripture as it relates to our salvation. It’s the only way we can validate that anyone does have the truth. Again if you study church history Ignatius himself appealed to the writings of scripture to support his teachings. Ignatius pushed for an official canon so he could refute Marcion. How else would someone know who to believe? Ignatius could claim he was a successor to the Apostles but why would that matter to anyone? Obviously it didn’t because people still believed Marcion and his terrible heresies. The only way to solve the dilemma is to have a neutral source to make an appeal to. And that is scripture.
Anytime the church questioned a teaching the Fathers appealed to scripture. That has to be our measuring stick. We have church leaders to help us understand what scripture is telling us. But the oral teachings of fallible men cannot be considered absolute truth without something to test it by.