Christians: Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?

[Dogknox20]

God-breathed...
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Scriptures are "Useful" they are NOT alone! Church uses the scriptures for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting and for training!
The scriptures are used but they are NEVER alone!

 

[shunyadragon]

Sola Scriptura is NOT Biblical
Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

The Bereans accepted the message of the Church thus they were MORE noble!
Those in Thessalonica were LESS Noble because they believed in "Sola Scriptura"!
Paul was teaching "Christ resurrected" (acts 17:3) this is NOT found in their Old Testament they NEEDED the Church to arrive at TRUTH! Those in Thessalonica trusted in their Scriptures ALONE!

There are some contradictions in your posts as well as the history of Christianity. 'Sola Scriptura' was the unquestioned standard of Christianity up until the18th century, because ALL scripture was considered 'God breathed'. Yes, the scripture does not stand alone, being 'God breathed' it was considered God's Word cover to cover as the foundation The 18th century began the most significant rift in Christianity between those who believe in a literal (with exceptions) 'God breathed' 'Sola Scriptura' representing roughly '40-50% of Christians in the USA, and those that believe in a non-literal interpretation of much of the Bible allowing for scientific explanations that conflict with a literal Bible.

 

[exchemist]

There are some contradictions in your posts as well as the history of Christianity. 'Sola Scriptura' was the unquestioned standard of Christianity up until the18th century, because ALL scripture was considered 'God breathed'. Yes, the scripture does not stand alone, being 'God breathed' it was considered God's Word cover to cover as the foundation The 18th century began the most significant rift in Christianity between those who believe in a literal (with exceptions) 'God breathed' 'Sola Scriptura' representing roughly '40-50% of Christians in the USA, and those that believe in a non-literal interpretation of much of the Bible allowing for scientific explanations that conflict with a literal Bible.

This is not very accurate.

- The principle of sola scriptura was adopted by Martin Luther and his followers at the Protestant Reformation in the c.16th. It was not a significant feature of pre-Reformation Christianity.

- Its purpose was to differentiate the Protestant approach to Christianity from that of the Catholic church, which had always maintained that God also speaks with authority through sacred tradition and through the spiritual successors of the Apostles by ordination, i.e. the clergy, not just through scripture. See Magisterium: Magisterium - Wikipedia. especially the section on its historical development.

- The question of literal versus non-literal biblical interpretation is a separate issue from sola scriptura. You are right that literalism (as distinct from sola scriptura) became an issue in the c.18th. This was probably due, paradoxically, to the scientific revolution and Enlightenment thinking, which encouraged people to think that mankind could now know everything with certainty that in previous eras had been regarded as a mystery. So with this mindset, for some strong believers, the bible came to be seen as a historical or scientific text.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is not very accurate.

- The principle of sola scriptura was adopted by Martin Luther and his followers at the Protestant Reformation in the c.16th. It was not a significant feature of pre-Reformation Christianity.

- Its purpose was to differentiate the Protestant approach to Christianity from that of the Catholic church, which had always maintained that God also speaks with authority through sacred tradition and through the spiritual successors of the Apostles by ordination, i.e. the clergy, not just through scripture. See Magisterium: Magisterium - Wikipedia. especially the section on its historical development.

- The question of literal versus non-literal biblical interpretation is a separate issue from sola scriptura. You are right that literalism (as distinct from sola scriptura) became an issue in the c.18th. This was probably due, paradoxically, to the scientific revolution and Enlightenment thinking, which encouraged people to think that mankind could now know everything with certainty that in previous eras had been regarded as a mystery. So with this mindset, for some strong believers, the bible came to be seen as a historical or scientific text.

The above is only partially correct. Yes Sola Scriptura was adopted by Martin Luther as a part of the Protestant Reformation to differentiate it from the Roman Church, the literal interpretation of the scriptures was at the time believed by both. As the movement grew in Christianity to interpret the Bible less literal in the historical and scientific context 'Sola Scriptura' became identified with the literal interpretation of the Bible as it is today. It remains today that the literal interpretation of the Bible remains prevalent among Christians worldwide even among the believers of the Roman Church as in South America. The problem arises in the conflicts with with various non-literal scripture and the the concept of 'God breathed' source, and some of the fundamental beliefs in Christianity such as the Fall, Original Sin and the Flood depend on a somewhat literal interpretation, and the authors of the gospels and letters of the NT believed in a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch. Those that believe in the literal interpretation of the scripture today rely strongly on the Biblical text as it is without trying to refit it to be compatible with science and academic history today.

 

[metis]

Yes Sola Scriptura was adopted by Martin Luther as a part of the Protestant Reformation to differentiate it from the Roman Church, the literal interpretation of the scriptures was at the time believed by both.

That would depend on how one defines "literal" in this context. The Church never taught that the scriptures were completely inerrant, and for very good reasons as they noticed some inconsistencies between the books and also some questions about the authorship of some books. However, the Church did believe that the major teachings dealing with issues of basic morality are inerrant.

 

[exchemist]

The above is only partially correct. Yes Sola Scriptura was adopted by Martin Luther as a part of the Protestant Reformation to differentiate it from the Roman Church, the literal interpretation of the scriptures was at the time believed by both. As the movement grew in Christianity to interpret the Bible less literal in the historical and scientific context 'Sola Scriptura' became identified with the literal interpretation of the Bible as it is today. It remains today that the literal interpretation of the Bible remains prevalent among Christians worldwide even among the believers of the Roman Church as in South America. The problem arises in the conflicts with with various non-literal scripture and the the concept of 'God breathed' source, and some of the fundamental beliefs in Christianity such as the Fall, Original Sin and the Flood depend on a somewhat literal interpretation, and the authors of the gospels and letters of the NT believed in a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch. Those that believe in the literal interpretation of the scripture today rely strongly on the Biblical text as it is without trying to refit it to be compatible with science and academic history today.

This is ill-informed. As this explanation makes clear, : The Great Myths 11: Biblical Literalism - History for Atheists. the bible most certainly was not interpreted fully literally for most of the history of Christianity. It's rather long so I'll quote a bit relating to how the bible was seen in the Medieval period:

The idea of monasticism had been brought to the West from the East by John Cassian (360-435). Cassian also brought with him to the West the exegetical methods of Origen but added a new sense to Origen’s three original ones of the literal, moral and allegorical (body, psyche and spirit). Cassian added the anagogical sense, which revealed how a passage of scripture related to the end of time in the Christian worldview.

The four senses of scripture in the Middle Ages now read as follows, summarised by Alister McGrath:

1. The literal sense of scripture, in which the text could be taken at face value, referring to some historical event.
2. The allegorical sense, which interpreted certain passages of scripture to produce statements of doctrine. Those passages tended either to be obscure, or to have a literal meaning that was unacceptable for theological reasons to their readers.
3. The tropological or moral sense, which interpreted such passages to produce ethical guidance for Christian conduct
4. The anagogical sense, which interprets passages to indicate the grounds of Christian hope, pointing toward the future fulfilment of the divine promises in the New Jerusalem. (pp. 113-114)

The scheme of interpretation was often summed up in an easy to remember Latin poem, or rhyme that is found within the writings of many scholars of the Middle Ages:

Littera gesta docet

Quid credas allegoria

Moralis quid agas,

Quid speres anagogia

McGrath’s rough translation of this is:

“The literal [sense] teaches about deeds; the allegorical [sense] what to believe; the moral [sense] what to do; the anagogical [sense] what to hope for”.


It is quite false to say that non-literal interpretation of the bible only came about to due conflicts with science. Origen and Augustine of Hippo were already treating Genesis as allegory within a few centuries of the birth of Christ and, as the above passage shows, bible interpretation was a very complex field by medieval times.

 

[Dogknox20]

There are some contradictions in your posts as well as the history of Christianity. 'Sola Scriptura' was the unquestioned standard of Christianity up until the18th century, because ALL scripture was considered 'God breathed'. Yes, the scripture does not stand alone, being 'God breathed' it was considered God's Word cover to cover as the foundation The 18th century began the most significant rift in Christianity between those who believe in a literal (with exceptions) 'God breathed' 'Sola Scriptura' representing roughly '40-50% of Christians in the USA, and those that believe in a non-literal interpretation of much of the Bible allowing for scientific explanations that conflict with a literal Bible.

.
shunyadragon Good to meet you...
With all respect... You are most certainly wrong!
Until Martin Luther started the Tradition of Scripture Alone it was unheard of until Martin Luther! Luther was born in 1483 he started the Tradition... He said (paraphrase) "We don't need the Church all we need is the scriptures Alone"!
Scriptures are very clear...Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Those who rejected "Scripture Alone" were more noble! Those in Thessalonica rejected the teaching of the Church they were "Less Noble"! BUT...

shunyadragon but those in Thessalonica will have an excuse when they stand in judgement, their scriptures (Old Testament) do not have written "Listen to the Church" as your New Testament does! You will have No Excuse when you are judged you are even less than those in Thessalonica just plain Not Noble!
Think: Paul was teaching "Christ Resurrected" this teaching is Not found in the Old Testament they Needed a teacher to arrive at the truth they needed the Church!

Jesus commissioned his Church to teach all nations! Jesus gave his Church the Authority of God to make God' Children!
The first day of Pentecost Peter ADDED 3000 people to "The Church"! Jesus established his Church on Rock it will never fail.
shunyadragon to believe what you believe you Must believe Jesus is a fool!
Matthew 7:26
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

shunyadragon Jesus is Always With his Church to the end of Time. This means: Jesus is still to this day with his One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church he established on Rock!
Matthew 28:20
Teach them to obey everything that I have told you to do. You can be sure that I will be with you always. I will continue with you until the end of time.”

shunyadragon You and Martin Luther (all protestants) want to reject the words of Jesus; to somehow think Satan overpowered Jesus and Satan took the body of Jesus away from Jesus!

 

[shunyadragon]

That would depend on how one defines "literal" in this context. The Church never taught that the scriptures were completely inerrant, and for very good reasons as they noticed some inconsistencies between the books and also some questions about the authorship of some books. However, the Church did believe that the major teachings dealing with issues of basic morality are inerrant.

Careful using the word 'completely; in this context. I never asserted this. The Roman Church as well as the rising Protestant Church definitely considered the Pentateuch as literal history, with limited exceptions of the interpretation of apparent conflicts. This has always been part of the premise of 'Sola Scriptura' and the Fundamentalist interpretation up until today This included the story of Adam and Eve, the Fall, Noah the Flood and the Creation description in Genesis. I believe the Roman Church as well as most Protestant Churches considered the New Testament as inerrant and 'God breathed' true as written, which based on the references by the authors considered the Pentateuch as literal history as it is. .

 

[exchemist]

Careful using the word 'completely; in this context. I never asserted this. The Roman Church as well as the rising Protestant Church definitely considered the Pentateuch as literal history, with limited exceptions of the interpretation of apparent conflicts. This has always been part of the premise of 'Sola Scriptura' and the Fundamentalist interpretation up until today This included the story of Adam and Eve, the Fall, Noah the Flood and the Creation description in Genesis. I believe the Roman Church as well as most Protestant Churches considered the New Testament as inerrant and 'God breathed' true as written, which based on the references by the authors considered the Pentateuch as literal history as it is. .

What you "believe" is not borne out by the evidence I have presented to you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Christians:

Is Sola Scriptura biblical?

Or is it a tradition?

It depends on your definition, IMO. I don't believe God speaks anything that runs counter to scripture but that's not to say God can't still speak. A cessionist would say that the day of miracles is over. I don't think that's correct.
What happened in some cases is that through a very strained interpretation of scripture, several faulty doctrines we're developed. When I argue for scripture alone to be the guide it's usually to counter these clearly unbiblical doctrines.

 

[Dogknox20]

It depends on your definition, IMO. I don't believe God speaks anything that runs counter to scripture but that's not to say God can't still speak. A cessionist would say that the day of miracles is over. I don't think that's correct.
What happened in some cases is that through a very strained interpretation of scripture, several faulty doctrines we're developed. When I argue for scripture alone to be the guide it's usually to counter these clearly unbiblical doctrines.

.
Wildswanderer I hope all is well....
I reply... Jesus established a Church and his Church decided what was truly Inspired words of God and what were not! Then his Holy Church put all the inspired works into one book she named "The Bible"! The Church came long before there was a bible!

Wildswanderer The tradition of "Man does not need church all we need is the scriptures "Alone"" did not appear in history until the1500s A.D. it was unheard of until Luther came along! The tradition is not found in the scriptures; fact is the opposite is true!
The scriptures say (God tells us) "Listen to the Church"!
God told Martin Luther in the scriptures: rejecting the church was rejecting God!
Luke 10:16
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Wildswanderer Martin Luther the father of this tradition of "Scriptures Alone" (Sole Scriptura) had to reject the scriptures to form his man-made tradition!

 

[Wildswanderer]

.
Wildswanderer I hope all is well....
I reply... Jesus established a Church and his Church decided what was truly Inspired words of God and what were not! Then his Holy Church put all the inspired works into one book she named "The Bible"! The Church came long before there was a bible!

Wildswanderer The tradition of "Man does not need church all we need is the scriptures "Alone"" did not appear in history until the1500s A.D. it was unheard of until Luther came along! The tradition is not found in the scriptures; fact is the opposite is true!
The scriptures say (God tells us) "Listen to the Church"!
God told Martin Luther in the scriptures: rejecting the church was rejecting God!
Luke 10:16
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Wildswanderer Martin Luther the father of this tradition of "Scriptures Alone" (Sole Scriptura) had to reject the scriptures to form his man-made tradition!

What church? The Orthodox?

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends on your definition, IMO. I don't believe God speaks anything that runs counter to scripture but that's not to say God can't still speak. A cessionist would say that the day of miracles is over. I don't think that's correct.
What happened in some cases is that through a very strained interpretation of scripture, several faulty doctrines we're developed. When I argue for scripture alone to be the guide it's usually to counter these clearly unbiblical doctrines.

the fact is that various manuscripts have been found, some differing slightly from others. Not very much, but enough to cause differences. Including and particularly in translations.

 

[Dogknox20]

What church? The Orthodox?

.
Wildswanderer you asked, "What Church did Jesus established!?"
Fact from the bible: Jesus established "One (1) Church"!
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Wildswanderer my church Singular (1) not plural

So, for you to find the only Church Jesus established on Rock you must look back 2000 years in the history of man! There is only one Church that you will find!
It can only be The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church the only Church Jesus built on Rock not on sand!
1) One because God is One!
2) Holy Because God is Holy!
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
3) Catholic because God is universal (Catholic)
4) Apostolic because the Only Church Jesus established has roots going all the way back 2000 years to the Apostles! NO OTHER...

Wildswanderer no other church has these four marks!

Martin Luther' church and all other man-made churches must believe Jesus is a "Fool"! Otherwise, there is no need for them they would all be Catholic's if they trusted the scriptures; God cannot lie!
Matthew 7:26
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

Wildswanderer Jesus is with his Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to the very end of time, his Church is built on Rock never to fall!
Matthew 28:20
Teach them to do everything I have commanded you. “And remember that I am always with you until the end of time.”

Wildswanderer This means Jesus is still today with his holy Church, it also means Jesus cannot be with any others because he is not a fool, he did not start these churches men did! Thousands and thousands of man-made churches all claim to have the only truth but not even two believe the same things; all coming from the Tradition of "Scripture Alone!"!
I point out: There was Only the Holy Catholic Church until 1054 A.D. then the Orthodox split from Jesus' body to form theirs!

 

[Dogknox20]

the fact is that various manuscripts have been found, some differing slightly from others. Not very much, but enough to cause differences. Including and particularly in translations.

.
YoursTrue I hope all is well...
Your words are very true and make the point! Early in Church history there were many hundreds of letters kicking around, many were used in church, it got to the point that no one knew what was truly inspired and what was not! The Holy Catholic Church with the help of the Holy Spirit took on the task of deciding the truly inspired words of God from the phony ones!
She decided what was God's words and what letters to jettsen as phony! EVEN...

YoursTrue even if every letter started with "This is the inspired words of God" the phony ones would also have started with "This is the inspired words of God"! There are no scriptures that say what is inspired and what is not. The holy Catholic Church decide what was truly inspired, then she put all these letters into one book she named "The Bible"! Don't you think if God helped her in this task of picking out of the hundreds of works what was truly God' inspired words that he would not also stick around and help he Interpret the same works!?
The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has the Authority of God to teach all nations! She uses her scriptures The Bible but not only the scriptures she also uses Tradition!

If you reject the Authority of the Only Church built on Rock not on sand, then how can you accept your bible as authoritative? You might as well toss your bible out of your stinking bathroom window if your reject her authority otherwise how can you trust she got it right in deciding God' holy words?!

 

[Wildswanderer]

.
Wildswanderer you asked, "What Church did Jesus established!?"
Fact from the bible: Jesus established "One (1) Church"!
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Wildswanderer my church Singular (1) not plural

So, for you to find the only Church Jesus established on Rock you must look back 2000 years in the history of man! There is only one Church that you will find!
It can only be The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church the only Church Jesus built on Rock not on sand!
1) One because God is One!
2) Holy Because God is Holy!
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
3) Catholic because God is universal (Catholic)
4) Apostolic because the Only Church Jesus established has roots going all the way back 2000 years to the Apostles! NO OTHER...

Wildswanderer no other church has these four marks!

Martin Luther' church and all other man-made churches must believe Jesus is a "Fool"! Otherwise, there is no need for them they would all be Catholic's if they trusted the scriptures; God cannot lie!
Matthew 7:26
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

Wildswanderer Jesus is with his Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to the very end of time, his Church is built on Rock never to fall!
Matthew 28:20
Teach them to do everything I have commanded you. “And remember that I am always with you until the end of time.”

Wildswanderer This means Jesus is still today with his holy Church, it also means Jesus cannot be with any others because he is not a fool, he did not start these churches men did! Thousands and thousands of man-made churches all claim to have the only truth but not even two believe the same things; all coming from the Tradition of "Scripture Alone!"!
I point out: There was Only the Holy Catholic Church until 1054 A.D. then the Orthodox split from Jesus' body to form theirs!

So you can only find Jesus if you are Catholic?
You limit God to one sect? The Catholic church has been anything but pure. Why would I trust that it is as the true church?

 

[shunyadragon]

What you "believe" is not borne out by the evidence I have presented to you.

Disagreements over the origins and meaning of Sola Scriptura aside. Sola Scriptura has decided impleications in the history if Christianity since Martin Luther.

I consider this a classic Duck, Bob and Weave as failure to respond concerning the actual extent and history of the inherency of the Bible..

Do you deny that the belief of the Roman Church before the 18th century was a literal inherent belief in the Pentateuch, and remains today an inherent belief in the New Testament today?

Yes, Sola Scriptura was proposed by Martin Luther to challenge the legitimacy of the authority of the Roman Church, but at its foundation is to reaffirm the inherency and literal interpretation of the Bible.in the history of both the Roman and Protestant churches This still remains

The belief of a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch remains strong not only in the USA but in Latin America among both Protestant and Roman Church believers.

Chapter 3: Religious Beliefs

Biblical Literalism
In a majority of countries surveyed, half or more respondents say the Bible is the word of God and should be taken literally, word for word. This view is particularly widespread in the Central American countries of Guatemala (81%), Honduras (80%) and Nicaragua (77%). Only in the “Southern Cone” countries of Argentina (37%), Chile (36%) and Uruguay (24%) do fewer than half of adults subscribe to a literal reading of the Bible.

In the United States, 73% of Hispanics say the Bible is the word of God, but just 43% believe it should be taken literally, word for word.

Overall, Protestants in Latin America are more likely than Catholics to view the Bible as the literal word of God. This disparity is especially evident in Uruguay, where 56% of Protestants and 22% of Catholics say the Bible should be taken literally. There also are large gaps between Protestants and Catholics on this question in Chile (63% vs. 35%) and Venezuela (86% vs. 60%).

Attitudes toward the Bible vary among the religiously unaffiliated. In some countries, majorities of unaffiliated adults subscribe to biblical literalism, including six-in-ten or more in the Dominican Republic (73%), Nicaragua (70%), Honduras (66%) and El Salvador (61%). By contrast, relatively few among the unaffiliated take a literal view of the Bible in Mexico (12%), Chile (12%), Uruguay (11%) and Argentina (3%).

 

[Dogknox20]

So you can only find Jesus if you are Catholic?
You limit God to one sect? The Catholic church has been anything but pure. Why would I trust that it is as the true church?

Wildswanderer Hello....
You ask good questions!

First Why would I trust that it is as the true church? The simple answer is: "Logic"! All other churches were started by a man!
The only Church established by Jesus is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church it is 2000 years old!
Ignatius of Antioch 107 A.D. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.”
WildswandererThe early Church was the Catholic Church!

Ignatius of Antioch
“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).
Wildswanderer The early Church had Bishops with authority!

You made this statment. : The Catholic church has been anything but pure.
I reply: The Catholic Church is full to the rafters with sinners! Sinners need Jesus and salvation! You should not consider the Catholic Church if you are without sin!
The Church Jesus established on Rock remains Pure and Holy without blemish because the Church is the Body of Jesus! All people immersed into the body of Jesus are God' children! All will be saved IF....
Wildswanderer all will be saved if they "Remain in Jesus"! Baptism immerses us into the Body of Jesus Communion Keeps us in Jesus' holy Body!
John 6:56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
John 15:4
Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

Wildswanderer 3000.........
3000 were Added to the Body of Jesus the first day of Pentecost!
Acts 2:40
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

You asked... So, you can only find Jesus if you are Catholic?
I reply All can enter heaven; think about the Good Thief on the cross.... "Today you will be with me in Paradise!"
The Catholic is In the Body of Jesus! All others if They Love, if they are ignorant of the truth, if they follow their Good Conscience, if they follow the natural law! Can enter Paradise But the evil one will have an easier task to tempt and pull them away from salvation! The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth she offers to her children sacrament that strengthen them! other church has fewer helps... Some have baptism, some have confession, some have matrimony etc

 

[Wildswanderer]

The simple answer is: "Logic"! All other churches were started by a man!

Jesus was Jewish, not Catholic. He didn't start a denomination, he started the true church which is based on the truth that he is God's Son. So the true church isn't Catholic or Orthodox or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever. It's all true believers in Jesus, no matter where they happen to gather.

 

[metis]

I believe the Roman Church as well as most Protestant Churches considered the New Testament as inerrant and 'God breathed' true as written, which based on the references by the authors considered the Pentateuch as literal history as it is. .

Again, it means on how one uses "inerrant". And as far as "literal history" is concerned, that also relates to the problem of defining "inerrancy". For example, the counts in Numbers simply don't match, so does that break the concept of "inerrancy", yes or no? Same is true of the women visiting Jesus' tomb as no two Gospel accounts exactly match. Is that "literal history" as well or not?

Again, "inerrancy" must be defined first and then one can move on.