Posted on 05/31/2004 12:24:47 PM PDT by Destro
***************8
At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."
Read much? It's not that no one knows where she was buried, but rather that her tomb was found empty.
Not an insiginficant difference, and one you should observe.
Considering how much we love relics and how much we love Mary, you'd think the greedy evil Catholic Church would have made good use of the bones of Mary. Instead, we believe they are not on earth at all. I guess we missed the money-making potention on that one.
SD
Just think of how many millions of Marian bones could have been sold during the Dark Ages, or given as a bonus to each person who bought 10 or more gallons of mother's milk from Mary.
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY
A Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries.
By William Webster
So? That is true of almost any false doctrine promoted by someone claiming Christianity.
That it is a man-made corruption of Scripture I will take as a given. However, in all fairness, it has just as much root in Scripture as does any other Protestant innovation, such as 'Faith Alone'.
I agree completely with that comment, but again, it does *not* come from 'scripture alone.' False doctrine is necessarily an addition to scripture. Apostasy is created by a failure to follow the Bible alone, because "you can't get there from here", so to speak, if you are really following only the Bible. The fact that some *claim* to do so but subsequently adopt a bunch of unscriptural nonsense does not discredit the Biblical approach itself, it just indicts those who falsely invoked it.
As an infrequent visitor to the religion section on FR, your discussion of the trinity is interesting to me, at least in its familiarity. I've had this debate countless times with other people, in other words.
I thought you might find this verse of interest:
Isa 43:11 - I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.
Clearly this states that God is the only Savior, yet we also know Jesus as our Savior. To me, if anything "proves" the Trinity, this is it.
Comments welcome but I rarely debate my faith anymore. I like to read and learn others', but ultimately my faith is between me and God. I thought you might find this interesting though.
Thanks,
Since this is FR, I'll throw in a political analogy. The baby-killers point to the U.S. Constitution and claim it guarantees a right to an abortion. Since this is a false claim, it does nothing to discredit the idea of appealing to the text of the Constitution for ultimate legal authority (sola constitutiona?) rather than tradition (judicial precedent, case law, living-document crap).
How do you know your position is the correct "Biblical" one and theirs is a "failure" to follow the Bible?
SD
So, in order to do it in this case, Church Tradition must be rejected. By definition, that is Sola Scriptura.
False doctrine is necessarily an addition to scripture. Apostasy is created by a failure to follow the Bible alone, because "you can't get there from here", so to speak, if you are really following only the Bible. The fact that some *claim* to do so but subsequently adopt a bunch of unscriptural nonsense does not discredit the Biblical approach itself, it just indicts those who falsely invoked it.
Apostasy, by definition, is the abandonment of a previous loyalty. That would include Church Tradition, which includes the Ecumenical Councils. False doctrine is not always a case of addition, but sometimes a case of omission. Or both. In any case, it involves a deviation from what has been traditionally taught.
The idea that someone could read Holy Scripture and, without the guidance of Tradition, interpret it correctly is an attractive idea, but only in theory. In practice, it doesn't work. Different people will interpret it in different ways. Take a look at all the different christian denominations today. Consider, for a moment, what it is that we are divided over. By and large, we are divided over our interpretations. The absence of Tradition greatly aggravates the problem. Schisms become inevitable. Pick up a newspaper and see for yourself.
I can read. The same way I know that my position on, say, gun control is the correct Constitutional one and the gun-grabbers' position is a failure to follow the Constitution.
Indeed. But again, the existence of erroneous interpretations does not preclude or discredit correct interpretation. Unity in doing right would be nice but is not necessary (or even absolutely achievable). Unity in error is worthless.
The problem with appealing to a text is that, once again, different people will interpret the text differently. An honest approach would be to try and determine the ideas that the text was intended to convey. But some people have an agenda that they would like to push and will misinterpret the text to achieve said agenda.
This is true. But tradition can also be susceptible to an agenda -- I'd say even more so, as it can more easily be changed over time than static text.
Let's try this from another angle...
Let's say I write a letter to my sister. In that letter I say "I was one foot out the door when I realized I forgot to call you". Two thousand years later, some archaeologist digs up my letter. Do you think he could correctly interpret my comment? Did I mean I was exactly 12 inches on the other side of the threshold? Did I mean I was straddling the threshold? Or did I simply mean I was in the hurried process of leaving? The text alone cannot solve the dilemma.
My sister loved me so much, that she made copies of my letters and gave them to her children. She told each of them the stories behind my letters and what all my funny little sayings really meant. She instructed her children to hand this information, both letter and interpretation, down to their own children. In doing so, she started a tradition. Her children and grandchildren, being faithful to her request, have kept the meaning of the letters intact.
If the archaeologist were smart, he'd check with my sister's great grandkids before racking his brain too hard.
agreed
I'd say even more so, as it can more easily be changed over time than static text.
More so, only if it were to be held to the exclusion of the text. But so far as I can tell, nobody does that. I know the Orthodox don't and I'm pretty sure the Catholics don't either.
Just for grins, try this:
Step 1: Look at 2000 year history of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Count up the number of schisms (or spinoffs, etc) in that timeframe.
Step 2: Now look at the 500 year history of Protestantism. Count up the number of schisms (new denomonations, etc) in that timeframe.
Assuming you have not yet died of old age during step 2...
Step 3: Now calculate the data as ratios of new units per year.
Point being, there is something in the Protestant approach that boosts this dividing ratio tremendously. I think the root cause is ostensibly Sola Scriptura.
Just some food for thought there.
Yes, but I think it's a weak analogy. For one thing, the content of letters to your sister is never going to be an issue of great cultural and political importance, whereas there is actually an incentive to twist Scripture as religion has been used to control people for centuries.
Secondly, passing this tradition down is like game of 'telephone', where the content can evolve with each generation of hearing & re-telling. If it gets to the point where your great-great nieces and nephews have interpretations that contradict the text of your letters, then I cannot count on them as reliable sources. Especially if, in your letters, you predict that people are in later years going to claim to be your relatives and misrepresent your letters.
Thirdly, I feel confident that God is a better writer than you or me, and can make Himself understood without needing a lot of help from flawed human beings.
Point being, there is something in the Protestant approach that boosts this dividing ratio tremendously. I think the root cause is ostensibly Sola Scriptura.
The Bible is simply not that badly written. An honest appeal to it cannot support scores of mutually exclusive doctrines.
As far as why this division is so much more prevalent in Protestantism, I imagine it has a lot to do with the authoritative hierarchy of the Catholic church, and the fear of members that they would be lost if they left it. Lots of protestant denominations have developed hierarchies of their own, but the false doctrines of salvation by faith only, once-saved-always-saved, etc., have created a mindset among many that they can choose whichever church they like, or even start their own, and everything will be just dandy. And again, these doctrines -- being false -- cannot originate from an honest, thorough examination of Scripture.
By the way, there were certainly divisions already taking place in the first century -- churches and individual Christians were admonished by the New Testament writers for their partisan tendencies ("I am of Paul" "I am of Apollos") and for drifting away from sound doctrine. Entire congregations -- i.e., Laodicea -- had seemingly gone into apostasy. Were they Protestants?
BTW, I do not consider myself a Protestant, though I imagine you certainly would.
Ya, it's a bad anology, but don't go too far out of your way to miss the point.
Secondly, passing this tradition down is like game of 'telephone', where the content can evolve with each generation of hearing & re-telling. If it gets to the point where your great-great nieces and nephews have interpretations that contradict the text of your letters, then I cannot count on them as reliable sources. Especially if, in your letters, you predict that people are in later years going to claim to be your relatives and misrepresent your letters.
Which would leave you guessing as to what the letters really mean. I'm not sure how that makes you better off. It hardly puts you in a position of authority. Analogies aside, there is no shortage of writings throughout Church history which comment on Scripture. Hence, distortions, willful or otherwise, can be readily challenged.
Thirdly, I feel confident that God is a better writer than you or me, and can make Himself understood without needing a lot of help from flawed human beings.
Given the sheer number of misunderstandings between christians today, I'm not inclined to agree. And for the record, God's writing skill is not at issue here.
*******
The Bible is simply not that badly written. An honest appeal to it cannot support scores of mutually exclusive doctrines.
Again, it has nothing to do with how well the Bible was written. It has to do with how well the Bible is interpreted. Shakespeare was a good writer, but 400 years later I need an expert on British Literature to explain. As for the "scores of mutually exclusive doctrines", that they exist is self evident. As to whether or not their appeals were honest, I'm not qualified to say.
As far as why this division is so much more prevalent in Protestantism, I imagine it has a lot to do with the authoritative hierarchy of the Catholic church, and the fear of members that they would be lost if they left it. Lots of protestant denominations have developed hierarchies of their own, but the false doctrines of salvation by faith only, once-saved-always-saved, etc., have created a mindset among many that they can choose whichever church they like, or even start their own, and everything will be just dandy. And again, these doctrines -- being false -- cannot originate from an honest, thorough examination of Scripture.
Pardon me for pointing this out, but the obvious question has now become "where does that leave you". Put differently, "How do you differ from others who do their own thing?"
By the way, there were certainly divisions already taking place in the first century -- churches and individual Christians were admonished by the New Testament writers for their partisan tendencies ("I am of Paul" "I am of Apollos") and for drifting away from sound doctrine. Entire congregations -- i.e., Laodicea -- had seemingly gone into apostasy. Were they Protestants?
The early church did have it's issues to deal with. But schisms were considered worse than heresy. As such, they were very rare. Not so with Protestants.
BTW, I do not consider myself a Protestant, though I imagine you certainly would.
IMHO, If you can, in some way, shape or form, trace your brand of christianity back to the Reformation, then you are a Protestant. Otherwise, you are not.
FWIW, some Catholics would say that we Orthodox are the first protestants. But that's how food fights get started.
Later addition of precedence of the Holy Ghost in the words "and through the Son" (Filioque), which was almost exclusively done by Western (Latin) Christians suggests two causes and two sources, which is contrary to Cghristian belief in the monarchichal relationship of the Father.
Faced with early heresies related to the natures of the Son, the Church clarified theological concepts of Trinity in the first two Ecumenical Councils (Nicene and Constantinople) and formalized the Faith by the now famous complete Nicene Creed. Unfortunately, the Latin side of the Church continued to use the confusing and potentially miselading Filoque to this day.
None of this will be found in the Bible, but is a product of the early Fathers' knowledge of Faith through written documents and Tradition that contains the written and unwritten truths and mysteries of our Lord (for not everything the Lord taught the Apostles was written down, but passed to the succeding bishops in the form of Tradition).
Although the Portestants claim that all their knowledge of God comes from the Scriptures, they also know that profane sources are used to clarify the Bible and that to a large extent the Protestants also rely on a sort of their own tradition rather than a completely individual interpretation of the Bible.
If sola scriptura were even a possiblity for the first 1800 years of Christianity (when the Bible was largely unavailable to most people, and when the vast majority of believers couldn't even read) then there would be no need for Protestant churches -- since everyone could satisfy his or her religious needs and find all the answers simply by reading the Book. The truth is that the very people who propose the idea that all you need is the Bible seem to preach more and write more about the faith for the faithful than the pre-Protestant Chrisitan churches.
If that were so, there would be no need for preachers, Protestant churches, and the multitude of "how to..." books written by various Protestants.
The idea that everyone can understand and profit from the word of God because the Bible explains itself perfectly (sola scriptura) is naive at best and historically without support just knowing that for some eighteen hundred years of Christianity the vast majority of believers couldn't read and/or couldn't afford a Bible.
The fact that preaching and book writing (like "Purposeful living"...etc.) did not cease but only intensified now that most people can read and bibles are very available and affordable makes the notion that the Bible is all you need without any support.
Also, individual interpretations contrary to a particular Protestant denomination's traditional beliefs will not be welcome. The fact is that Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, various flavors of dispensationalists, etc. hold on to very specific ideas and will "debate" and try to "correct" those brethren believed to be interpreting the word of God "deficiently." Based on what? The "correct interpretation?" Who among Protestants can say has the correct interpretation of the Bible? Measuring the truth by human standards? By someone who memorized the Bible? Or by someone who piled up fifteen PhDs?
The Church did not come out of nowhere. It was handed down to the Apostles and from them to their bishops to this day. The Tradition is checked against the writings and documents that followed the Church in its journey. The Bible is the central portion of that Tradition and reflects the knowledge of the right faith by those who assembled it. Without that knowledge, the Bible would not have come into existence.
Right on!! But you left out the part where Margaret MacDonald was a catholic (or I didn't see it) thus Rapture (which is latin) and you will find that word in a catholic dictionary. If Christians can not identify the Whore then yes...if it were possible even the very elect of God would be deceived. They are blinded and choose to be that way.
People misunderstand the scripture where Christ said many will come saying I am the Christ.....(He didn't mean imposters)...he meant YES they would say He was the Christ but in their ways deny HIM. They would proclaim Him for every reason but the right reason, and in that spirit they become against Christ OR the Spirit of the Anti-Christ.
Mess with people's doctrines of devils and watch them turn on you like a pack of wolves, JUST as our Lord said they would.
The rapture is not part of Catholic dogma and indeed is a heresy to Catholics.
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.