[paladin1_dcs]

Thanks for your reply. I agree that the essentials are, well, essential. However, God according to Calvinism is quite foreign to the Christian God - in my view. So, this is an essential to me. And, arguments from scripture never have settled it. We end up often, as you put it, at the logic tree. Yet better logicians than you or I still disagree. And, I agree in general with the Protestant Principle that the reader of scripture should honestly approach scripture seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My problems are primarily in the practical aspects, both individually and collectively. Is each individual tasked to work out the Christian faith through scripture on their own? As individuals differ on what the Christian faith is n its essentials and otherwise, what is the Christian faith for the Body of Christ in unity? If there is no authority but the individual then, in practice, the Body of Christ is hopelessly divided. Using the logic tree, I conclude that this is why Our Saviour instituted His Church and gave it authority. Thanks again for your posts.

Thank you for such a well reasoned post. I'll try to answer you as well as possible.

Would it surprise you to learn that I too believe that Calvin was, to put it lightly, off in his doctrine to the point that I begin to suspect the validity of the other areas of his life? I'm not one to dismiss doctrine simply on the grounds of who claims it, but more on the grounds of what Scripture says about the matter.

To answer you honestly though, I believe, after having studying the Scriptures, that the individual is to work out, or work to understand, his own salvation on his own but with guidance from his local body of believers, also known as the Church. I agree that Our Savior instituted His Church and gave it authority. What I disagree with is the idea that the authority of the Apostles over the first Churches was passed down to others after the Apostles deaths. I believe that this apostolic authority remains with the original Apostles' writings in dealing with our issues. As I can find no evidence within their writings to support the passing down of their authority, I reject the Roman Catholic view of their Apostolic authority.

[2nd amendment mama]

What I object to about the Catholics is that they are taught to believe that only the only way to eternal life and salvation is through belief in the Roman Catholic church.

I believe that the only way to salvation and eternal life is through Jesus. Huge difference.

[D-fendr]

Thanks very much for your courteous reply.

We agree on much, primarily that Christianity is not solely personal. It involves the community of the Church also as regards proper doctrine and use and interpretation of scripture.

with guidance from his local body of believers, also known as the Church.

Don't we have the same problem here with differing interpretations, on the local level? Do I go to the local Catholic Church or the local Calvinist Church? Are we not back to every individual tasked to work out what is the true Christian faith? On the practical level, this is what we have, and the Body of Christ is, again, hopelessly divided, can never be One as our Saviour prayed and therefore, I believe, instituted His Church.

I believe that this apostolic authority remains with the original Apostles' writings in dealing with our issues.

This is no solution, we are back to arguing differing interpretations of their writings.

What I disagree with is the idea that the authority of the Apostles over the first Churches was passed down to others after the Apostles deaths.

This is the scriptural and historical fact however. From the Council of Jerusalem to the Councils which settled the canon to those which argued and determined the Holy Trinity and Christ's Human and Divine nature.

Did Arian and Nestor have equal authority to the apostolic bishops in council? They argued from scripture as well. If the Apostolic Church did not have authority passed down, why isn't the Catholic Faith Arianism or Nestorian in doctrine. (Note that in some non-Catholic Christians we still find these heresies.)

So at which point does the Church's authority become illegitimate? Wherever you pick, why not sooner - or later.

As I can find no evidence within their writings to support the passing down of their authority, I reject the Roman Catholic view of their Apostolic authority.

And this is, again, according to your interpretation. Personally, I cannot read scripture without seeing the Church, with authority, throughout. Paul argues his authority many times. He argues scripture, but his authority is the difference, why he can correct others and not vice-versa.

We see this apostolic authority in scripture and where scripture stops, we see it continue in history of the Church Fathers. We would have to believe they made a grievous scriptural error from the beginning of the Church in order for your view to be correct.

Thanks again; I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with passion but also with respect.