Posted on 03/26/2015 11:36:04 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Abishag the Shunammite
Thanks for the ping!
If Mary was conceived without sin, then that diminishes the effect of the fall of Adam.
Per Scripture, -everyone-, except Christ, is ‘dead in trespasses & sin’ until they are regenerate/born again.
The teaching of the immaculate conception of Mary allows all the other items to follow (bodily assumption, co-redemptrix, etc)
1) Do you advocate the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" because you want an infallible source of truth, and it's the most likely or practical candidate, or because the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is true?
Those are two separate things.
Hopefully you believe the latter. But the doctrine can't be true, because it isn't biblical. It's a self-refuting doctrine.
2) The Bible is the Word of God.
It is reasonable to believe this, but the argument does not presuppose the inerrancy and inspired nature of Scripture. That would be a circular argument. The argument below is not circular.
While the Bible is divinely inspired and the written Word of God, it is NOT the ONLY source of TEACHING authority for Christians.
Paul calls the church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
Paul also taught:
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2This is in accord with Jesus' command."So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15)
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6)
Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
Jesus taught:
"Go and make disciples of all the nations... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."The early Christians said:"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."
Irenaeus"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
You aren’t answering the question. The Church, by the authority given to Peter and subsequent Popes, have defined and proposed teaching for belief. This includes the Patristics. Do the Fathers agree on everything? Nope. However, it is the Church who has the authority to determine what is and isn’t authentic.
Either you take the Bible for what it is or you don’t, as Luther and the like. The same is true for the Patristics.
In the end, you are rejecting the authority of the Church, given it by Jesus Christ himself. You have made yourself the sole arbiter.
Specifically? And by what authority do you make such pronouncements?
You are aware Jesus wrote no texts, correct? You are aware that our first-hand knowledge of Jesus and His teachings were recorded in the Gospels and Epistles, right?
So, how is it that you claim to know anything about Jesus if it was written after 96 AD or by the Apostles themselves?
What texts are your replying upon? It sounds like you are rejecting the entire New Testament. Is that correct, or was something mis-typed, etc?
And what was left out that was canonical, and who was the judge of that?
I think that is a fair statement. However, we disagree upon who is in error.
If one chooses to reject 7 books of the Canon, that would be a pretty good indicator of who is in error.
Romans 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Now you deny that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one? What is this. Jesus is God unless it's more convenient for you if He isn't? Make up your mind.
>>So, how is it that you claim to know anything about Jesus if it was written after 96 AD or by the Apostles themselves?<<
Um......what? It's Catholic that claim to know what the apostles taught after what was written in scripture. I keep asking them for infallible evidence and they never produce any.
Your post seems to me to be an indication that you totally missed the meaning of my post.
I did miss the meaning of your post, and stated as much.
I don’t deny the Trinity, rather, state explicitly that Jesus never put pen to paper in the form of text. Rather, all of His teachings were passed to the Apostles orally.
Oral tradition was the main source of teaching, as few were literate. While the Old Testament and the New Testament books when they came were essential, it was centuries before people, in large numbers, were able to read themselves.
This oral tradition was recorded, reference, and transmitted by the Catholic Church. Scripture was protected during the dark ages by monks copying them by hand.
Now as to what the Apostles taught after the Canon was closed is simple. Sts Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch were disciples of the Apostles. They wrote extensively and their writings have been recorded for history.
Why you chose to use the term “infallible” is curious, as it is matter of fact and recorded history.
Your proof text is inappropriate, as you missed the entire second chapter.
God transmitted His law to the Jews. They thought if they had the outward appearance of the law, circumcision, then that was enough. The second chapter closes with the admonition that one must be circumcised of heart.
As we enter the 3rd chapter, the discussion continues. Just because one hears the law, doesn’t mean a thing. One has to act according to it, in the spirit of it.
You are aware that the Jews only had the prophecies of Jesus and not the teachings themselves.
Those teachings were recorded by the Apostles and Gospel writers, preserved by the Catholic Church, and transmitted both orally and in writing since then.
The Catholics added to what the Jews considered scripture. It clearly says the oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews not to the Catholics. Besides, all the apostles were Jews.
>>Those teachings were recorded by the Apostles and Gospel writers, preserved by the Catholic Church<<
They were added to by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church cannot prove that the apostles taught some of the things they teach. Paul clearly said anyone who teaches something they didn't should be considered accursed.
>>and transmitted both orally<<
The simply prove what they claim as "orally" was also taught by the apostles.
I must not be understanding you.
What was added? If you are speaking of the Septuagint, that was completed by around 130 BC.
I don’t know why you are hanging on this one line about oracles. It is completely out of context. I looked into the meaning of this particular verse, and found several authors indicating the discussion was about whether Jewish converts had an advantage with God. The answer was “no” and that all men are sinners (liars, etc.).
Are you saying that the Catholic Church added to the Epistles of Paul and Peter, as well as to the Gospel writers?
What does the Church teach the Apostles didn’t? Recall in John 20:30” Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.” Recall also, in John 21:25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”
It seems Our Lord, in doing many other signs likely talked about those signs, and gave lessons. Luke 24:45 says after the Resurrection, “Then He opened their understanding, that they might understand Scripture.” Don’t you think the Apostles would have spread that understanding, despite it not be written?
St. Matthew recounts in 28:20 “...teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
So, each Gospel writer tells us Jesus taught and did more than was recorded. Would the earliest of Catholics (Ignatius of Antioch, in 107, is recorded to use the term Catholic Church, and disciple of St. John the Apostle) have learned these things, especially since it was before the completion of the Gospels? There are no other contemporary sources to contradict this.
These contemporaries of the Apostles, the first bishops, had works recorded, that transmitted what the Apostles taught, BEFORE, either the Gospels were completed, or the Canon of Scripture was closed.
One last thing, do you believe all that is written in the Gospels? One should, though their accounts of some incidents are somewhat different, and some events are not captured in all 4. Again, it was teaching of the Apostles, not recorded in the Bible, but recorded in the works of disciples of the Apostles, along with the Scriptures that were taught to the earliest Christians.
Oh yeah!!!!
I'm not avoiding THE ISSUE:
How do Catholics decide which TEACHING to follow?
Only SEVEN???
I thought the Jews had 15 that were added.
What happened to 8 of them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
Oh?
Just HOW do you KNOW this?
I've noticed that.
>>I don’t know why you are hanging on this one line about oracles.<<
I don't doubt that for a minute.
>>What does the Church teach the Apostles didn’t?<<
Please show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary or the need to believe that to attain salvation. How about praying to those who have passed from this life?
>>It seems Our Lord, in doing many other signs likely talked<<
To the human mind many things seem likely"
>>Again, it was teaching of the Apostles, not recorded in the Bible, but recorded in the works of disciples of the Apostles, along with the Scriptures that were taught to the earliest Christians.<<
And 6 of the 7 churches addressed in Revelation had already gone astray. Not good odds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.