He doesn't always wear a cake:
Posted on 02/07/2006 5:02:07 AM PST by HarleyD
All limes are a given by God and are profitable for flavor and smoothness: that the Cuba Libre may be perfectly furnished for all good toasts.
Now, you want to tell me you only need limes to make a Cuba Libre?
SD
***Note ... drstevej has been banned from FR.***
He was?
Now, you want to tell me you only need limes to make a Cuba Libre?
Far be it from me not to give credit when its do. Lol. That was good Dave.
BTW congrats with the Steelers.
Dear SoothingDave,
This could be fun.
All chocolate icing is given by God and is profitable for cake-making: That the chocolate cake may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good birthday parties.
sitetest
I dunno.
My knowledge of Booze extends about thus far:
I enjoy your conversation, SD... but on that analogy, you just lost me entirely.
(sheepish grin). But now, I really must go. best, OP
LOL...good question...but it's the Church itself again! Benedict comes out with a dogma, I can't believe the dogma hosoever I want to, I must believe it *in the sense that the Church intended it.* Final interpretation *always* rests with the Church, with the college of bishops and the occupant of the See of Peter at its head.
This hit home for me with CRI. I was listening to one of Hank's shows on Calvinism where he had two speakers that were on opposite sides of the issue. They went at it hammer and tongs--respectfully of course, but Hank kept *stressing* amidst it all that, and I quote: "it was an in-house debate", and that both positions "were acceptable within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy." I am still a bit puzzled over this last statement. How is it that Hank is able to define what positions were permissible within Christian orthodoxy?
Campion, you hit on something here, namely that Hank defines *the historic Christian faith* by the fact that there have been both Calvinists and non-Calvinists within this loose amalgam of Protestant Christianity. Namely--if you want to put it this way--there were respected Protestant Fathers on both sides of the issue, therefore both positions were tolerable.
However, what made him choose only the Protestant Fathers for this analysis? Why Luther and Calvin, and not Cajetan and Bellarmine? And why stop at the 1500s instead of going back through the 15th, the 13th, the 9th, the 4th, all the way back to the Apostolic Age itself?
It is not a matter of tradition vs. no tradition. Rather, it is matter of selective tradition vs. universal tradition.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be *perfect*, *thoroughly* furnished unto *all* good works. (II Timothy 3:16-17)
Amen! But being profitable is not the same as being all-sufficient. Observe: "All bats can fly, as it is profitable for them to extract nourishment from insects in the air or to fly to a source of fruit, that all bats may be perfect in the niche created for them by God." This is true, but, if the question is about what animals can fly, is it sufficient? No. Most birds can fly, and so do many insects. Citing bats as the sole examples of the benefits of animal flight will be not only insufficient but actually false, as they are not the "sole" fliers.
It's the same type of situation here. Scripture IS profitable as noted by St. Paul, but so is the oral teaching he himself (as well as the other Apostles) presented, as noted in 2Thessalonians 2:15. So is the Church corporately such a profitable source, as it alone is described as the "pillar and bulwark of the Truth." (1Timothy 3:15). All of this specifically points to sources of authority that, along with the Bible per se, constitute the fulness of revelation.
How else could it be? The hearers of St. Paul's second Letter to Timothy did NOT have the entire New Testament at hand. Not only was it not completed at the time, but it would be many decades before all of the scattered Christian communities had all 27 books of the NT before them, and several cneturies beyond that before ALL of the non-Scriptural writings were definitively culled from the collection. Further, many, if not most, of the early Christians, and Christians right up to at least the 18th Century, could not read and/or did not have a personal copy of the Scriptures available to them. What of them? Was the Teaching Church not there precisely to bolster them in the Word and the Sacraments?
Your ecclesial pedigree has lost the notion of how the canon of Scripture came to be, and simple observation proves that its assertions about the Holy Spirit guiding each individual to a "right understanding" of the meaning of Scripture are demonstrably false and utter nonsense. There is not one single chapter of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, that can be parsed out by two Protestants without at least one disagreement about its contents. And no wonder. You have jettisoned the Church, which is the compiler, vetter and interpreter of Scripture, the New Testament of which was secondarly authored (along with God, the primary Author) by eight of its early members.
I'll ignore as simple ignorance your statements about alleged papal worship, delivered in such a thoughtful and elegant tone. If you have been on FR for even a month, Catholic responses to such juvenile rantings should have set you straight on the sheer silliness of such a charge by now.
Pax Domini.
He doesn't always wear a cake:
Was Athanasius a Protestant?
"...from the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources..."
De Decretis, 31
"The Holy and Inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the Truth'
Contra Gentiles, 1:1
"These [canonical] books are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them: in these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel; let no man add to or take away from them."
Festal Letters 39
"For they were spoken and written by God."
De Incarnatione 56
"...the Scriptures...will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we said"
De Incarnatione 56
"Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us."
Ad Epis Aeg 4
Cordially,
Well, "Cuba Libre" is just a fancy term for a rum and Coke with lime. The lime juice softens the rum flavor.
I enjoy your conversation, SD... but on that analogy, you just lost me entirely.
The point is that the structure of the sentence exactly mirrors the text from Scripture. One would not read my version and conclude that limes are sufficient for making this cocktail. If the words don't say Scripture is sufficient, and the form/structure of the sentence doesn't logically lead one to conclude it is speaking of sufficiency, then from where does one find Sola Scriptura in this verse?
The answer, of course, is "you don't find it there unless you import it from elsewhere."
Which is an odd thing to do when supporting the idea that the text should speak for itself.
SD
I'm sure you've heard me say similar things in the past. Glad to be of amusement.
BTW congrats with the Steelers.
Thanks, but let's keep this quiet. The last thing we need is for these threads to cross. Then we'd have to argue about the use of tradition versus the text in the understanding of pass interference calls. LOL
SD
Good question. The tradition of Cajetan, for example, disagreed with what became official dogma canonizing the Apochyphra. If you go all the way back to the post Apostolic age there is no "universal" tradition that is binding on the Christian conscience outside of Scripture because there never was any "unanimous consent of the fathers in the first place" regarding certain dogmas currently promulgated by the Roman Church. To the the extent there was anything resembling a unanimous consent in the teachings of the fathers, it repudiated papal ecclesiology.
Cordially,
Wonderful. How do you know that the music you hear "labeled" as from Bach or Beethoven is really from them? Have you heard either play before? You trust other people, don't you?
Thanks for nothing? You already HAVE experts who tell you that "this recording" is from the music of Bach. They have his actual manuscripts, their music sheets. Of course we trust that these experts are able to figure out the music is genuine because we trust the manuscripts ON THEIR OWN MERIT.
This is not true with the Bible! We don't possess ONE SINGLE AUTOGRAPH! Thus, BY ITSELF, the Bible does not validate itself! In many of the letters, we don't even know who wrote them! Second Peter? Hebrews? Jude? Paul HIMSELF WARNS of forgeries! Who wrote the "Gospels"?! Practically everything we know (without witnesses - the Church) about Jesus is based on the absolute trust that those particular writers were honestly recording a true narrative and passing along orthodox teachings. Any courtroom in America would laugh you out if you tried to foist the idea that even INDIVIDUAL letters were self-attesting, like the music of Bach.
What makes your stance even more ridiculous is that you are presuming that ALL 27 books of what we call the New Testament ARE INDEED FROM GOD. Based on what internal evidence? A few vague verses that do not mention the entire canon? You don't even know if you got some of the individual books correct - nor do you know you got ALL the correct books in what we call the Bible!
The only way we know that the Gospel of Mark is not a forgery or not a heterdox Gospel (like the Gospel of Thomas) is because the CHURCH validates it. They taught the Gospel by word of mouth FIRST. THEY were in the position to KNOW what was truly from the hand of an apostle, not us! Thus, you comparison is not much of a comparison at all. Without the Church, you wouldn't even know you got the Word of God in your hands.
Sadly, you take for granted that there was FIRST an Apostolic Teaching that everyone already KNEW. With this, they validated the Scriptures. The Scriptures didn't validate the teachings already given. The Scriptures were revered later as they were FIRST RECOGNIZED as true letters from the Apostles - those sent by Christ.
The early Church merely listened and sensed that these were Authoritative documents.
Exactly. Without the Church's idea of Tradition, they wouldn't have sensed anything as truly from the Apostles.
Regards
Wonderful. How do you know that the music you hear "labeled" as from Bach or Beethoven is really from them? Have you heard either play before? You trust other people, don't you?
Thanks for nothing? You already HAVE experts who tell you that "this recording" is from the music of Bach. They have his actual manuscripts, their music sheets. Of course we trust that these experts are able to figure out the music is genuine because we trust the manuscripts ON THEIR OWN MERIT.
This is not true with the Bible! We don't possess ONE SINGLE AUTOGRAPH! Thus, BY ITSELF, the Bible does not validate itself! In many of the letters, we don't even know who wrote them! Second Peter? Hebrews? Jude? Paul HIMSELF WARNS of forgeries! Who wrote the "Gospels"?! Practically everything we know (without witnesses - the Church) about Jesus is based on the absolute trust that those particular writers were honestly recording a true narrative and passing along orthodox teachings. Any courtroom in America would laugh you out if you tried to foist the idea that even INDIVIDUAL letters were self-attesting, like the music of Bach.
What makes your stance even more ridiculous is that you are presuming that ALL 27 books of what we call the New Testament ARE INDEED FROM GOD. Based on what internal evidence? A few vague verses that do not mention the entire canon? You don't even know if you got some of the individual books correct - nor do you know you got ALL the correct books in what we call the Bible!
The only way we know that the Gospel of Mark is not a forgery or not a heterdox Gospel (like the Gospel of Thomas) is because the CHURCH validates it. They taught the Gospel by word of mouth FIRST. THEY were in the position to KNOW what was truly from the hand of an apostle, not us! Thus, you comparison is not much of a comparison at all. Without the Church, you wouldn't even know you got the Word of God in your hands.
Sadly, you take for granted that there was FIRST an Apostolic Teaching that everyone already KNEW. With this, they validated the Scriptures. The Scriptures didn't validate the teachings already given. The Scriptures were revered later as they were FIRST RECOGNIZED as true letters from the Apostles - those sent by Christ.
The early Church merely listened and sensed that these were Authoritative documents.
Exactly. Without the Church's idea of Tradition, they wouldn't have sensed anything as truly from the Apostles.
Regards
No this one was better. First time it felt like I was reading Kingeth Jameth english regarding a rum and coke.
None of this contradicts the notion that Scripture is NOT "all-sufficient." Scripture cannot undertake self-explication, and that, in itself, shows that it is not all-sufficient. It does not address EVERY situation, except derivitively, and then only by an authoritative interpretation. Is embryonic stem-cell research wrong? Yes. Does the Bible *specifically* treat to the issue? No. Only derivitively, and by way of the Church interpreting the 5th Commandment (your 6th) in a way that leads to the proper conclusion.
You might say that example is obvious, but what about contraception? What about smoking? What about consumption of alcohol? What about a host of other things ALSO not directly mentioned in Scripture for which we find differing arguments, for and against, that are Scripturally based? Well, actually, alcohol consumption IS mentioned in the New Testament (1Timothy 4:23), but the rather bald, clearly worded statement there is still debated by Protestants as to its meaning. In other words, inerrant Scripture without an infallible source of interpretation runs aground as next-to-useless. Without that source of interpretation, it is NOT all-sufficient. Even with that source, Scripture is not all-sufficient, as it does not really expand on such basic concepts as the nature of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, or a host of other things. All of these need an extra-biblical authority to decide. The early Church had no problem with this concept. Witness the early Ecumenical Councils and their papal ratification. Perhaps you should more critically explore that angle...
Aw, shucks, where again does it say "sola"? I don't see anything about the scriptures being ALONE necessary for anything. Actually, the Bible tells us ANOTHER means of perfecting the Christian!
And He {God} Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph 4:11-13)
The Scripture ITSELF tells us of another means of "perfecting" man! I guess the Bible ALONE is not how man is perfected, or come to the knowledge of the Son of God. Isn't that something how the Bible tells us that the teachings of God that come through men perfect us???
Forget about Sola Scriptura. It is philosophically a dead-end.
Regards
So the Holy Spirit now comes to each man and tells him the canon of the Scriptures???
And Joseph Smith? HE said that the book of Mormons is from God and the Spirit told him it was.
Do you believe everything you hear?
Regards
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.