Posted on 10/09/2001 12:20:12 PM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
| Thread 158 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 159
. If it was that important to the church, we should expect to have at least some of it preserved in its original form
I see the problem. You see "tradition" as something static when tradition, in a living institution, is anything but static. Tradition is a living institution is dynamic. Tradition that leads to dogma develops over time as the Holy Spirit guides the Church. The example of Homer you cite as an example of oral tradition hardly applies. Literature or historical narratives concerning a dead and ancient culture can hardly be compared to the oral and written traditions of a living Church.
I would also point out that much of Catholic doctrine regarding Mary is based on early oral tradition. I think looking for fully developed dogma in the first century of the Church would be fruitless and pointless. We hold that dogma can develop over time because the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium. So there’s no reason the get hung up on WHEN a particular dogma developed, because we, unlike neo-Christians don’t view the doctrine of sola scriptura in much regard. And if truth be told neither do most protestant and neo-Christians. They simply substitute their own traditions in place of Catholic traditions.
I also fail to see how this addresses the issue of what is the definition of the incredible morphing doctrine of sola scriptura and how can a valid doctrine have so many different definitions? If sola scriptura does not bar one from incorporating tradition in to ones religious life, on what authority do neo-Christians of all stripes disregard the magisterium of the Church?
I also understand that these issues have been worked over for hundreds of years and what we are doing now is simply serving as an educational exercise and a reinforcement tool for our own positions:)
Yes, I did say this at the first part of the post, but I think I clerified it later on the same post, Did you read that far down?
God is no doubt using you as he uses all others, to appeal to the variety of different people in this world, and their is a certain type that is attracted to your Church, and that's fine, but don't think for a second that you have a monopoly on Christ, if you do, he has failed to supply us with a Church that the Holy spirit can thrive in, and utilize all the gifts he has given us.
I do apologize though for insinuating earlier in the post, that there was no place in your Church for the fruits of the Holy Spirit, because you as all others are a part of the Body of Christ.
Even though I sometimes wonder which part? (sorry, couldn't pass that up.) :-)
OK, maybe you said a little more than you meant and I read a little less than all that you said. I'm not sure what parts of the Body we all are, but I suspect Steven is one of the "naughty bits." :-)
SD
I chose this particular statement because it seems to be at the root of you confusion (many of the others stem form blatant ignorance of the diversity of worship styles with in what is the Catholic Church)
We don't rely on a man or men; we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Since the Holy Spirit guides the Church we are required to be obedient. We don't believe in the heresy of "once saved always saved," so by being obedient to Christ’s teachings and His Church we preserve the gift of grace.
So do you think the diversity of Christian theology made possible by the doctrine of sola scriptura is what Christ had in mind when he established His Church?
Well said, but how do you reconcile the divergent, often contradictory doctrines offered by thousands of Christian sects and denominations with the validity of the doctrine that made that diversity possible?
Than is the doctrine that made these paths possible valid?
Just your imagination. I use the term to address all non-Catholic or Orthodox Christians. It became necessary to develop a term because some non-denominational Christians took issue with being lumped together with Protestants.
Again, I can just feel the love from my brothers and sisters in Christ. Odd the both you and PNAMBC took issue for my hope for your salvation.
At least you didn't condemn me to hell...
Yes, I do, and I don't call it diversity, or chaos as some like to call it, I call it "Variety", the true universal Church, one that has a place for everyone.
When God hears all the prayers coming up to him, does he consider it chaos or confusion? Of course not, and because they are coming from a Catholic or a Protestant or any of the off shoots, they are his beloved followers, and they are sounds of harmony to him.
They are all parts of the Body and all are necessary because of their variety of fruit they produce. While chants may be beautiful, so are the black Gospel songs, and the country style music, and so many others, so do you think God only loves Catholic Chants?
Do I think that Christian theology brought on "Sola Scriptura"? and is that what Christ had in mind?
I really believe that Christ didn't like the direction in which the man made Church was going, it was too confining, and restrictive to make welcome the many different parts of the Body.
It did not allow for variety in God's multifaceted society. Someone who grew up in the Catholic Church, may think how natural and beautiful it is, but I have attended several times, (6 or 7) and I hated all the rituals they went through, the anointing with water as they entered the Church, the genuflect, the sign of the cross, the statues, all the glitter and candles and smells of incense, and I felt like I was in a secret society of some sort, then they read in Latin, and every one was repeating along with them, and to me this was the last place in the world I would want to attend.
I love simplicity, and straight forwardness in a Church, not a show of wealth, or secret gestures or hand shakes, and mysterious sounds, but just a get to the meat of it type of place. Of course the fact that I believe that our body is the temple of God, and not an orginization could have some bearing on the way I view Churches. I also believe it's what we do all week long that God looks at, and not what we do on the weekend.
Some people go where they like the music, some go for the type of minister they have, some because it is the closest to home, some because it is what they grew up in.
Christ came for all these people, and as I see it, he could care less where they go to find him, as long as they find him and have a personal relationship with him.
For some people finding a Church they're comfortable in, and able to grow in is a life long quest, but since it's what you say to God when you pray to him that really matters, I doubt seriously if he even cares where you go to Church as long as you and he have good communications.
I'm sure that you will agree that Catholics are not going to be the only ones in the kingdom, and if you are honest, then you have to say you are not the only way there, and when you admit that, you have just agreed that there is no one way to God's kingdom, but many others.
When I feel that I havent been able to say whats on my mind clearly, I usually deleat it, until I get the answers I need, but even though I have my doubts about this one, I am going to send it unless it deleats itself. Lol
He calls them hypocrites because they teach the law and do not follow it. They also teach their own traditions and don't follow them. They don't understand that the law isn't about rules and regulations, it's about obedience to God and love for fellow man. They not only don't practice what they preach, they are clueless about the meaning of the law, though they place themselves spiritually and morally above others (as though better, smarter and wiser than the rest).
The Mt. Olive's story prompts another question in a similar vein. What was the trap or temptation that the Pharisse's were setting up for Jesus?
That is simple. The temptation was to see if he would follow the law. The Greek, of course tells a more interesting story.. The trap was to see if he would take the law into his own hands or allow them to - or on the other hand to see whether he would argue against the law. If he went either way with this, they saw opportunity to accuse him before the law on one side or before the church council on the other. He turned it back upon them.
Ooo and one more... Who here can explain the parable of the two men who went to work for their father in the vinyard? Can't find the passage at the moment...In Luke perhaps?
I've explained that one before. It's a favorite :). It's Matthew chapter 21 - starts at verse 28. The first story dealing with the two sons is a trap for the Pharisees. He flatly put it in their faces that God had sent John the Baptist and they killed him. It's an allusion in my mind to what will happen to Jesus. The second story is an allusion to the vengeance of the Lord. The story is also an accusation - God sends his people about to do his work and the 'sophisticated know it alls' protecting their power over the church put them to death as they were a threat to their authority. God had put the trust of teaching in these men who made of themselves much more than what God made them - judges and executioners of men and of the will of God, judges of who are actually servants of God. And rather than do what it was God appointed the leaders to do, they made themselves high and sought their own ends through greed and lust for power. Jesus said that is to be removed from them and they shall be destroyed. Isn't allegory fun. And doesn't it sound awful familiar....
Men today make themselves high places over others - seeking to put upon them their own traditions for laws. Their teachings blaspheme the Lord and they are hypocrites in their ways - teaching and not doing the law. They seek their own ends - power and wealth using a usurped office to do so. They accuse and judge whom they will and claim for themselves the exclusive right and appointment to do so. When the Lord's servants have come before them, they have been accused, robbed, beaten and killed. They will not heed the word of the Lord; but, they will draw nigh to his judgement. The stone that the Builder rejected will pulvarize them. Praise God, for he is just!
Havoc just refuses to accept your word as fact or your claims for proof. Havoc knows his Bible and knows the word of God. The Will of God is Havoc's defining doctrine.. Not the Philosophy or traditions of any pretender to the authority of God. Jesus leads His Church, he appointed none to rule in His place. That role has been usurped by high sounding men that make lies truth and make truth inconsequential by lying about it, twisting and distorting it. The owner of the Vinyard will have his day!
If sola Scriptura meant that anyone could believe anything they wanted to believe, then you may have a point, but it does not state any such thing. Here is the definition:
"The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God."
Once again, RC's attack a straw man, that is, what they think or want it to mean, not what it really means.
Then the Word fails when the reader sees false doctrine in that words, such as that Jesus was not divine?
I think there is a time when questioning is harmful and a time when questioning is how we grow in spirit.
There is one definition of faith I like that takes some thought to understand: "Faith is the fearless search for the Truth; it is not harmed by questioning one's beliefs."
We are also promised that if we seek we shall find.
Still, I agree that there are times in some's lives when doubt is not to be chosen, but faith is to be clinged to.
We can try to discern the subtle spirit in which is time for which or we can trust others who have earned it; this is why the most fortunate among us are blessed by wise and compassionate spiritual directors.
"The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God."
I wonder why it took so long to get a simple definition?
If this is the simple definition is accurate, than I believe that it proves my point exactly. Since Scripture is held to contain all that is necessary for salvation than what is the key? Interpretation. Interpretation is the key. If Scripture alone is sufficient, something even Scripture it self never claims, than interpretation by the individual reader is the ONLY authority regarding Scripture. Now this is something Scripture pointedly warns against (2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16) so ho do you reconcile this notion that Scripture is sufficient but is dangerous in the hands of the neophyte or unlearned?
It is this dichotomy that has lead to the profusion of contradictory dogma with in the Christian community. The doctrine of sola scriptura has empowered anyone who can read to feel qualified to interpret scripture.
Is this what Christ had in mind?
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.