The Banned said:

---

Create Account said:

---

I'm not sure. I can only say I rarely feel like I'm saved.

---

You and me both. That's why the way Zobel is articulating the terminology around "saved" is important.

We were saved: God gave us the grace to recognize Him and we did

We are BEING saved: He is still giving us the grace but letting us stay in a state of sanctification that we can persist in or bail on at any time.

We will be saved: this is based on the "being" part. We will live for X number of days, and in each of those days we can decide to leave our faith in God behind. None of us know what we will do. But if we do persist in following Hjs call, then we will be saved in the future.

This is a radical divergence from any form of "once saved, Always saved" "unconditional election", "always saved, always saved", etc. Because of Luther and Calvin this is a tendency to view "being saved" as a moment in time, which makes what Zobel is saying sound like a foreign language.

---

Out of the three, the second is the only one I can know for sure. I looked up sanctification and this definitely does not apply to me. So I think I can safely say the other two do not apply to me.

I want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying something like you've never felt God's presence in your life so you can assume you aren't saved?

The Banned said:

---

I want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying something like you've never felt God's presence in your life so you can assume you aren't saved?

---

I have felt his presence in my life. There have been brief periods of deep repentance, but for the most part I have not been in a "state of sanctification". I force myself to pray, but can only recite rote prayers. Any other prayer is met with a deep sense of hypocrisy and that I'm talking to a brick wall.

Zobel said: "You are saved in the sense that Christ acted unilaterally to save you, but at the same time if you don't persevere you won't be saved."

If the first tense "we have been saved" is just referring to Christ's work on the cross in the past for all humanity, then that's why I say I rarely feel like I'm saved. Because I do not persevere or sanctify.

Zobel said:

---

Justification just means pleasing to God and or righteous, especially when you look at how that same Greek word is used to translate the Hebrew OT. That word carries a legal connotation in other Greek use, but I think it is a mistake to read it that way. Or at least to read it exclusively that way.

So yes it is part of salvation, but it is not all of it. You will be pleasing to God if you're faithful, you will also become righteous, and you will grow to be like Him by participating in His grace - theosis, becoming like God.

---

Going through some reading now as it pertains to the early church fathers and their receptiveness and support of justification being a forensic idea, in which we are essentially pardoned.

I would be curious your hesitation to read it that way.

It's one model, but not the only one. Not even the most common one.

But I'm talking about the scriptures, especially St Paul. He writes as a Jew, from the Torah, but in Greek. It doesn't make sense that he would be appealing to Greek philosophical concepts of righteousness when using a word from the Greek Old Testament. Especially when talking to Jews, as he is in Romans. The Hebrew equivalent is tsedeqah, and that's the word that is translated to the Greek word he uses for justification / made righteous.

There is a word for more forensic justice in Hebrew, mishpat, and it is translated using a different Greek word in the Greek Old Testament. He does not use that word in these places.

We should hear "righteousness" like tsedeqah when St Paul uses that word.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6666.htm

Anyway, there are several models used to describe salvation. The forensic is one, and is fine, but it isn't the only one and it shouldn't be pressed on so hard that we say if it's not that way it's wrong.

Zobel, that was very beautifully stated.

Zobel said:

---

It's not only that sense, no. If you have been faithful to Christ, you have been saved. There is a part of salvation that is yours that you receive at baptism, at chrismation, every time you receive the Eucharist.

Then there is ongoing work, as we work to participate with God. The feelings of doubt and hopelessness or frustration with our lack of progress are way better than feelings of holiness or some kind of personal purity - that's pride. But we should be humble, not despair, and know that God loves us. A rote prayer said in obedience is far more valuable than a spontaneous prayer said in pride. That's what the parable of the Pharisee and the publican shows us. That knowledge of your own sinfulness is a wonderful gift.

Thank God for the gift of humility you have, but don't let the enemy turn it against you into feeling despair. You have a God who loves you, and that is enough. Stay faithful, even if you have to white knuckle it, even if you fall down over and over again. He is merciful and forgives! That's what being a Christian is. We can't know if we will be found spotless in the end - but we can know if we will be found struggling to be faithful. And that is what He expects.

---

Zobel said:

---

It's not only that sense, no. If you have been faithful to Christ, you have been saved. There is a part of salvation that is yours that you receive at baptism, at chrismation, every time you receive the Eucharist.

Then there is ongoing work, as we work to participate with God. The feelings of doubt and hopelessness or frustration with our lack of progress are way better than feelings of holiness or some kind of personal purity - that's pride. But we should be humble, not despair, and know that God loves us. A rote prayer said in obedience is far more valuable than a spontaneous prayer said in pride. That's what the parable of the Pharisee and the publican shows us. That knowledge of your own sinfulness is a wonderful gift.

Thank God for the gift of humility you have, but don't let the enemy turn it against you into feeling despair. You have a God who loves you, and that is enough. Stay faithful, even if you have to white knuckle it, even if you fall down over and over again. He is merciful and forgives! That's what being a Christian is. We can't know if we will be found spotless in the end - but we can know if we will be found struggling to be faithful. And that is what He expects.

---

That's my concern. And I wouldn't characterize it as humility, I'm just being honest. I have little to no desire to sanctification. I am lead into temptation often and am quick to give in with no concern for eternity. In the judgment, I would not be found struggling to be faithful.

You find that you just don't care enough? Or something else?

The Catholic Church (Roman rite), has in its 255 "Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Catholic Faith" number 157 which states: "Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for Salvation."

Some here have stated that Catholics believe Christian's from other demonizations can reach heaven or something to that effect and salvation is for God alone through His Mercy. My question then is, how do Catholics reconcile Dogma 157 with that?

Also, a reading of Dogmas 137-146 makes it clear the Catholic Church recognizes only
ONE church and that being headed by the Pope or Roman Pontif. Does this answer the OP in the affirmative and does dogma 157 mean that people like I or Zobel are apart
From the Church and therefore salvation is not a possibility until we are compliant with 157?

Catag94 said:

---

The Catholic Church (Roman rite), has in its 255 "Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Catholic Faith" number 157 which states: "Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for Salvation."

Some here have stated that Catholics believe Christian's from other demonizations can reach heaven or something to that effect and salvation is for God alone through His Mercy. My question then is, how do Catholics reconcile Dogma 157 with that?

Also, a reading of Dogmas 137-146 makes it clear the Catholic Church recognizes only
ONE church and that being headed by the Pope or Roman Pontif. Does this answer the OP in the affirmative and does dogma 157 mean that people like I or Zobel are apart
From the Church and therefore salvation is not a possibility until we are compliant with 157?

---

The proclamation of "no salvation outside of the church" was from 1302. This was back when the entire Christian world was Catholic or orthodox and there were more and more dissenters to the church cropping up. Fast forward 700 years and Christianity has become much less unified and people have grown up in 1000 different faith traditions.

The reason why Catholics can hold to the teaching you cite AND still say there is possibility of salvation "outside" of the church is because God is merciful and we don't believe He will damn others simply fir growing up in a confusing time. And it is confusing because most Protestants are taught to just read their Bible and understand it for themselves. The myriad of different views muddy the waters so much it's hard to know who is right and who is wrong. It's put the reader in charge of understanding the faith instead of the teachers Christ left.

This is why I use terms like irregular or imperfect union. The thief on the cross was never baptized, right? But there is no doubt he would have if he could have. This is what we call baptism by desire. Same holds true in the interdenominational splits today. If Jesus himself told you to join the Catholic Church, would you do it? Would you take in the difficult teachings like no abortion in the case of rape, no conteaception/sterilization of any kind, submitting to church teaching authority, divorce and remarriage, confessing to a priest, transubstantiation, etc? If the answer is yes, it's possible we could say you're "in the church by desire" but there are human elements impeding you from joining.

Thank you. I follow that.

It appears that a modification of that Dogma or, and additional dogma would be in order.

In answer to your question (rhetorical or not), of course I would.

As a result of this discussion and on other topics, I research the Catholic Church considerably to understand how we got to where we are.

I spent some years umpiring baseball and softball at the high school level. Of course that usually results in lots of lower level umpiring too. One of the things that I learned is that those more inexperienced fans were (i.e. youth ball and or rec ball) the less they knew about the game and certainly about the rules, but the more they would vocalize their opinions, as ill-informed as those may be. I once listened to a man yell, I never heard of that" following a call which was by rule (not subjective). I remember thinking, "That's the problem, you only know what you've heard and you've never actually read the rules."

I try not to be that person, and 11+ years ago as I starting attending Catholic Mass along with my now wife of 10+ years, I applied this and sought to learn the true teachings of the church. The more I learned (and still do), the more I realize how closely my beliefs align. I've had so many discussion with Protestant friends through which I more often find myself explaining the teachings of Catholic Church…..most them only know what they've heard and haven't been more formerly educated.

So, I have reviewed the 255 dogmas and have questions and/or serious reservations of a handful. This handful seems to me to be completely irrelevant to the salvation God offers through our savior, Jesus. They are more about things for example like Marion dogmas which I may become more comfortable with, but find acceptance or denial of these to be irrelevant provided I'm not trying to convince others one way or another. But, according to the RCC, the faithful must believe in these firmly and continually. So….

Catag94 said:

---

Thank you. I follow that.

It appears that a modification of that Dogma or, and additional dogma would be in order.

In answer to your question (rhetorical or not), of course I would.

As a result of this discussion and on other topics, I research the Catholic Church considerably to understand how we got to where we are.

I spent some years umpiring baseball and softball at the high school level. Of course that usually results in lots of lower level umpiring too. One of the things that I learned is that those more inexperienced fans were (i.e. youth ball and or rec ball) the less they knew about the game and certainly about the rules, but the more they would vocalize their opinions, as ill-informed as those may be. I once listened to a man yell, I never heard of that" following a call which was by rule (not subjective). I remember thinking, "That's the problem, you only know what you've heard and you've never actually read the rules."

I try not to be that person, and 11+ years ago as I starting attending Catholic Mass along with my now wife of 10+ years, I applied this and sought to learn the true teachings of the church. The more I learned (and still do), the more I realize how closely my beliefs align. I've had so many discussion with Protestant friends through which I more often find myself explaining the teachings of Catholic Church…..most them only know what they've heard and haven't been more formerly educated.

So, I have reviewed the 255 dogmas and have questions and/or serious reservations of a handful. This handful seems to me to be completely irrelevant to the salvation God offers through our savior, Jesus. They are more about things for example like Marion dogmas which I may become more comfortable with, but find acceptance or denial of these to be irrelevant provided I'm not trying to convince others one way or another. But, according to the RCC, the faithful must believe in these firmly and continually. So….

---

Your second paragraph was dead on. One of my edits was removing a dig at the reformers that I thought "I can't truly know what was in their head" and deleted. I can be just as guilty of it.

I'll do some more digging. My understanding of "accepting" the dogmas can be equated to "not denying" the dogmas. Like the Marian dogmas you mentioned. Coming back from a Protestant church they kind of bothered me. I was told (maybe incorrectly) that it doesn't mean you have to make them a part of your daily faith life. I just can't adamantly reject them. Mary helps a lot of people come to Christ so I can't deny that. But doesn't mean I have to have a daily devotion to her.

Other Catholics feel free to correct that if I'm wrong.

ETA: on the convincing thing, I think you've hit on the problem. The Marian teachings don't become dogma until others Christians specifically DO try to convince Catholics they are relevant and untrue. So the church has to respond with something.

Thanks. F you find something definitive in that, I'd love to see it.
One more question (ok maybe several). In 1854, when Pope Pius IX, through exercising his new found Papal infallibility, declared the immaculate conception of Mary dogma, what became of the faithful to who did not believe this? Were they suddenly out of good standing with the church? Were they required to affirm this new Dogma? Did it cause any issues recorded in church history with regard to the faithful?

It's clear in CCC 838 that certain dogma are critical enough to interfere with common celebration of the Eucharist. This brings me back to the concept that perhaps the church could find ways to allow bishops and priest allow that common celebration with fellow Christians they personally learn are like me are no less in union with the RCC than the OC.

Catag94 said:

---

Thanks. F you find something definitive in that, I'd love to see it.
One more question (ok maybe several). In 1854, when Pope Pius IX, through exercising his new found Papal infallibility, declared the immaculate conception of Mary dogma, what became of the faithful to who did not believe this? Were they suddenly out of good standing with the church? Were they required to affirm this new Dogma? Did it cause any issues recorded in church history with regard to the faithful?

It's clear in CCC 838 that certain dogma are critical enough to interfere with common celebration of the Eucharist. This brings me back to the concept that perhaps the church could find ways to allow bishops and priest allow that common celebration with fellow Christians they personally learn are like me are no less in union with the RCC than the OC.

---

Brief review. Have to do more digging. A quote from the prior Pope Benedict stated it as "whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy". So obstinately doubts? I take this to mean more than just "idk how this all works" but more of a "I think the church might be wrong here" or greater. I don't see anything to suggest this happened in spades in 1854. Remember Calvin was the first public objector we can find, so I go with what everyone from 33-1500s was saying instead. With the way information flowed in the 1850s, most Catholics probably didn't get the news for awhile.

Honestly, I don't take Mariology to be a big deal. Probably a terrible Catholic moment, but whether she was sinless or not, as you said, does not change the work of Jesus Christ. So when the church defines her as being sinless, I'm cool with that. I will follow what they teach. This is how it was really up until the 1800s when certain Protestant sects really starting attacking the teaching. So we can say that the Catholic Church just needs to relax about it, but why can't we say that about those that did/do the attacking? Should the Church tell somewhere between 1500-1800 years worth of Christians they were wrong, when they were closer to the birth and death of Christ? Or should the Church consider the testimony of those that came before, recognize that something bigger than their personal opinion exists, and protect what they received. This is what we call the protection of the Holy Spirt. Not sure I could go through a play by play of how it happens, but whether it be a momentary inspiration or a deep sense of something greater than their own understanding, the bishops are guided by the spirit to avoid true error

I think if you sat down with a charitable priest, he would say that he would love to be in communion with you and that you should take all the time you need to get comfortable with the authority of the church in teaching matters. I think this is reasonable. For you to say "i don't get the Mary stuff but I'll follow what yall teach" isn't overly difficult. But if it really, REALLY bothers you, I think it does both you and the Church a favor to keep researching it until you get comfortable, or just figure that the church that gave us the canon of the Bible, trinitarian doctrine, and much more can just have the final say on Mary.

John, Polycarp and Irenaeus were all flawed human beings. Just like Luther and Calvin were flawed human beings. Just like you and I are flawed human beings. Outside of John when he penned his gospel and letters, I am not aware of when those men were supernaturally inspired by the Spirit of God.

Is the assumption that tradition is equally inspired by the Holy Spirt, perfectly? So there is no element of it that is in error? Is scripture not inspired, perfectly?

One other thought experiment is Israel in its infancy. Moses talking with God on the holy mountain and giving the people direction. Only for them to turn around and make a golden calf. So much for that tradition. The cycle repeated itself for centuries. Point being, men are going to get way off course at times. It surely didn't take Israel long to get sideways. Yes, we now have the Holy Spirit living within us, but it doesn't remove our sin nature.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

John, Polycarp and Irenaeus were all flawed human beings. Just like Luther and Calvin were flawed human beings. Just like you and I are flawed human beings. Outside of John when he penned his gospel and letters, I am not aware of when those men were supernaturally inspired by the Spirit of God.

Is the assumption that tradition is equally inspired by the Holy Spirt, perfectly? So there is no element of it that is in error? Is scripture not inspired, perfectly?

One other thought experiment is Israel in its infancy. Moses talking with God on the holy mountain and giving the people direction. Only for them to turn around and make a golden calf. So much for that tradition. The cycle repeated itself for centuries. Point being, men are going to get way off course at times. It surely didn't take Israel long to get sideways. Yes, we now have the Holy Spirit living within us, but it doesn't remove our sin nature.

---

Had a long write up and chose to edit it heavily. This is a short reply

Moses came down with a text. 10 simple commandments. But Jesus expounded upon that text to show the true meaning of the words. Interpretation is a necessary step in using any written document as THE authority. So by definition, the "authority" is subject to some other authority.

If flawed men weren't to be fully trusted outside of their writings, why should we trust the same flawed men to determine which writings were legit and which weren't? What if some of the books left out should have been in? What if some of the books that made it in were actually authored by apostles as modern research suggests? Does it all fall apart? Or do you rely on the tradition you hav received?

I am not anti tradition as it has obviously been very beneficial to the cause of Christ and his church. Even in my early reading and study as I have alluded to, I find the richness in some of what was happening. Furthermore, I do think there is an omission from the Protestant side, in general, when it comes to early tradition. However, as I am coming to read there was possibly a mischaracterization of how the reformers viewed the early church as well.

I think really what I was getting at, was that it didn't take long to get off course after a while. So I am not concerned with the Bible and acknowledge the human hands involved in that preservation. Most of the NT was circulating by 100AD, as I understand it, with many copies to boot. My concern is that it seems like there was a general simplicity in how the church operated in its infancy, and that is not what we have today. So the question is, for two millennia has the church just nailed it - truly captured the essence of Christ and his bride of what it was always meant to be? History tells me that's incredibly unlikely as we ***** after other things.

One analogy is a naval one - you get off course by a degree early on, and after traveling a thousand miles, you're not even close to your intended target.

Zobel said:

---

l
Holy tradition is the activity of the Spirit in the life of the church. It preceded scripture. It is ongoing. And yes, it is infallible - otherwise the scriptures it produced would be questionable.

---

Thanks- the idea it is regarded as infallible is helpful in my understanding.

How do we distinguish between the infallible, Holy Spirit provided tradition and the traditions of men?

The activity of the spirit preceding scripture I get, but the activity of the church itself can be flawed, and often times is, not just in RCC/various Orthodox denominations/churches but as well with Protestant/non-denominational churches.

I don't want to make this too hostile/history-based, but the simple fall of Constantinople/the folks who run the Hagia Sophia today (and Rome being repeatedly sacked before that) make me think no particular denomination has had 'great/Divinely-guided' leadership through the centuries. That clownish non-denom pastor at a funeral you described also comes to mind. There is silliness in all churches/human structures, imho, is all I am really trying to say.

How do you distinguish between inspired scripture and spurious texts?

I'm not sure I understand what the fall of a political government has to do with the church. Constantinople fell to Islam, so the church is fallible? That does not follow.

The activity of people within the church isn't the same as the corporate activity of the church. The principle is laid out by St Paul well. The individuals make up the body, but the body is Christ's with Christ at the head. The body is animated and made alive by the Spirit of Christ. If the church has error, it is Christ who errs.

nortex97 said:

---

The activity of the spirit preceding scripture I get, but the activity of the church itself can be flawed, and often times is, not just in RCC/various Orthodox denominations/churches but as well with Protestant/non-denominational churches.

I don't want to make this too hostile/history-based, but the simple fall of Constantinople/the folks who run the Hagia Sophia today (and Rome being repeatedly sacked before that) make me think no particular denomination has had 'great/Divinely-guided' leadership through the centuries. That clownish non-denom pastor at a funeral you described also comes to mind. There is silliness in all churches/human structures, imho, is all I am really trying to say.

---

Would it be fair to sum up your response as, "why not me as the authority for holy scripture?" This is the argument being presented, after all.

Zobel said:

---

How do you distinguish between inspired scripture and spurious texts?

---

What spurious texts?

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure I understand what the fall of a political government has to do with the church. Constantinople fell to Islam, so the church is fallible? That does not follow.

The activity of people within the church isn't the same as the corporate activity of the church. The principle is laid out by St Paul well. The individuals make up the body, but the body is Christ's with Christ at the head. The body is animated and made alive by the Spirit of Christ. If the church has error, it is Christ who errs.

---

So thinking back through the history of the church if we were to pick out the most awful things, the church is a whole has done one example perhaps being the Crusades, were those performed in error and was it not the whole of the church and all of its clergy leading this or do I have this all wrong and if I don't, are you suggesting that was Christ erring?

Catag94 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure I understand what the fall of a political government has to do with the church. Constantinople fell to Islam, so the church is fallible? That does not follow.

The activity of people within the church isn't the same as the corporate activity of the church. The principle is laid out by St Paul well. The individuals make up the body, but the body is Christ's with Christ at the head. The body is animated and made alive by the Spirit of Christ. If the church has error, it is Christ who errs.

---

So thinking back through the history of the church if we were to pick out the most awful things, the church is a whole has done one example perhaps being the Crusades, were those performed in error and was it not the whole of the church and all of its clergy leading this or do I have this all wrong and if I don't, are you suggesting that was Christ erring?

---

This is why the church says she does not err in teaching. The church can err in prudential judgements such as the recent one with the death penalty. The death penalty wasn't deemed evil or immoral because it would counter the historical Christian faith. So instead, the anti-death penalty crowd moved to have it deemed unnecessary now that we have high security prisons. This may be a mistake in judgement, but not a mistake in teaching.

So take the crusades: essentially just war theory. was it just to reclaim/protect Christian populations from invading forces? Yes. Whether or not it was executed well is another matter. But admittedly I know only the basics around the crusades, so maybe there is something in particular that I'm not addressing.

Zobel said:

---

The activity of people within the church isn't the same as the corporate activity of the church. The principle is laid out by St Paul well. The individuals make up the body, but the body is Christ's with Christ at the head. The body is animated and made alive by the Spirit of Christ. If the church has error, it is Christ who errs.

---

Are you talking about the church as we know it today and the one you are involved with today? Or the concept of the church? The church you belong to today is without error?

How do I not deduce from this that if individuals make up the church (I agree) that they are also not in error if the church is not in error (do not agree).

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

How do you distinguish between inspired scripture and spurious texts?

---

What spurious texts?

---

While I wouldn't classify it as spurious, First Clement is a really good examples of things that didn't make the cut. Read aloud in churches. Included in several local bibles. Written in 70 AD, or at least before many of the books that are included. Written by a direct disciple of an apostle. Fits all the criteria, but was left out for whatever reasons it was left out.

The didache was the same way.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am not anti tradition as it has obviously been very beneficial to the cause of Christ and his church. Even in my early reading and study as I have alluded to, I find the richness in some of what was happening. Furthermore, I do think there is an omission from the Protestant side, in general, when it comes to early tradition. However, as I am coming to read there was possibly a mischaracterization of how the reformers viewed the early church as well.

I think really what I was getting at, was that it didn't take long to get off course after a while. So I am not concerned with the Bible and acknowledge the human hands involved in that preservation. Most of the NT was circulating by 100AD, as I understand it, with many copies to boot. My concern is that it seems like there was a general simplicity in how the church operated in its infancy, and that is not what we have today. So the question is, for two millennia has the church just nailed it - truly captured the essence of Christ and his bride of what it was always meant to be? History tells me that's incredibly unlikely as we ***** after other things.

One analogy is a naval one - you get off course by a degree early on, and after traveling a thousand miles, you're not even close to your intended target.

---

I know several prominent Protestants (such as Wes huff, James white, etc) promulgate this idea too, but it sort of just skips over the question.

Let's grants that most (not all) of the books were in wide circulation by 100 AD. There were also several in wide circulation that were later excluded. Some books even read as a part of liturgy? Why not those? Why the others? Who decided on the criteria by which to judge the books? Who made the call to spread the letters in the first place? does the Bible define what belongs in the Bible? Does the Bible declare itself inerrant? Does the Bible claim itself infallible?

All those questions are rhetorical questions that lead to the crux of it all; If the early church got off course on things like the Eucharist, ecclesiology, praying to saints, etc, so fast, why can we be confident they were right about the Bible? To say "all of them were reading it" doesn't work unless you're willing to grant all the other things "all of them were doing".

It becomes a blind faith issue based on tradition no matter what we do. If the people that learned directly from the apostles got it wrong so fast, I see it as near impossible that some guys 1500 years later figured it out.

---

Just took this from a generic search...
"For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke's writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John."

So again, my takeaway is that the new testament was largely agreed upon and circulated widely. Elements of holy scripture also included apostolic authorship or direct contact with apostles. And the idea that it all needed to essentially support the main messages (No contradictory concepts).

With tradition, is there a similar path to legitimacy? Was the Eucharist, Mary, Saints, and everything else the Church embraces today built upon this kind of early and often checklist? I am genuinely asking, because if it is, then that definitely lends more credence to what you profess. If traditions were rather things that got incorporated past the time of the canonization of the Bible, that is where it would get pretty sketchy for me.

AGC said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The activity of the spirit preceding scripture I get, but the activity of the church itself can be flawed, and often times is, not just in RCC/various Orthodox denominations/churches but as well with Protestant/non-denominational churches.

I don't want to make this too hostile/history-based, but the simple fall of Constantinople/the folks who run the Hagia Sophia today (and Rome being repeatedly sacked before that) make me think no particular denomination has had 'great/Divinely-guided' leadership through the centuries. That clownish non-denom pastor at a funeral you described also comes to mind. There is silliness in all churches/human structures, imho, is all I am really trying to say.

---

Would it be fair to sum up your response as, "why not me as the authority for holy scripture?" This is the argument being presented, after all.

---

Yes, I am asserting the new 'nortex97 doctrine of infallibility.' Perfectly hostile response, thx. I mean, really, I got a laugh so thank you.

We don't have to look too far to find examples of terrible church leadership in any denomination, from Rome, to Constantinople, to Frisco TX, regardless of claims of the Holy Spirit guiding the institutions.