Posted on 11/11/2006 8:16:16 AM PST by annalex
" Holy Tradition must be in harmony with the Scriptures because the Christian Bible you read is the product of that Tradition, in other words, Faith delivered to the Apostles."
______________________________
Once the Canon was formed the "oral Tradition" should have ended, but it didn't. It was made an equal of Scripture. A terrible human flaw to manipulate facts in order to empower themselves and their organization.
But human flaw continues through human interpretation of the Scripture. Suerely you don't suggest that of the tens of thousands of diffrent "versions" of Protestantism, they all represent "equal" interepetation of Scripture. Please, don't tell me some people are above error.
However, you still don't seem to understand that Holy Tradition is not a human tradition any more than the Holy Bible is a human invention. Holy Tradition is what the Church believed "everywhere and always," from the Penetecost onward. It doesn't change, it doesn't grow, it doesn't develop.
BWWWHHAAAA!
That's funny! < wiping tears from eyes>
Thanks for the belly laugh!
With all due respects, I think it is a tad pompous for some to be telling others, "We're much smarter than you because we're 'learned men'." I thought it was the Holy Spirit's job to lead us to "all truths".
= = = =
Now, Harley,
Agreeing with you about Holy Spirit is a 2nd miracle in half a year. That's entirely tooooooo many. Must be 2 over your alleged allotted allottment.
I think I should go lie down before I fall out of my chair in a dead faint from the shock of it all.
Not necessarily; it depends how they are made. Certain fundamental elements of the teaching on Purgatory, Mary and the Papacy are indeed infallible and they prevent unification. However, it does not make the Orthodox heretical, largely because heresy requires acceptance of the teaching followed by its rejection. Our view is that these sticking points are elaborations on the traditional teachings and not in contradiction with them. One who disagrees with the elaboration nevertheless is not in heresy as long as he adheres to the traditional core.
Wouldn't that depend on who is doing the telling and to whom?
Thwe Westminster Confession is not consistent with the scripture itself. For example, human authoriship as well as divine inspiration are scriptural facts; the selection of books that the Confession considers inspired is arbitrary work of the authors of the Confession, tracing back to Luther and not to any divine source; the notion that Church follows scripture is nowhere in the scripture, yet it obviously is one of those things "necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation".
Your opening quotes from the scripture do nothing to support the fantasies in the Confession or rebut the Elder's analysis. John 6:35 speaks of the person of Jesus and not of the scripture; Matthew 4:4 does not make the distinction between written word and any other word of Christ, of which, scripture tells us not all are written down (John 21:25)
Everybody is doing that, not just a small "elitist" group. Besides, I can't think of a more pompous elitist group than Calvinists.
Your "Holy Tradition" is what your sect decided it would be. It is unverifiable because it was not written down, witnessed and measured against Scripture
You are saying nonsense. Actually, you are describing the Protestant community while trying to describe the legitimate Church of Christ. So, if anything, Protestant assemblies are true sects.
The Church can trace its way back to the Apostles. It's authority is based on apostolic authority passed on to the priesthood ordained by the Apostles (such as +Ignatius, ordained by +Peter). Your assemblies can trace their originis to a man, Luther. Your ordinations are not apostolic. It is a man-created church. As such, its legitimacy is on the par with Islam, which sprang up out of a man as well.
We have documents that show how the nascent Church was and what it believed and how it went about its worship. All of ti was approved by the still living Apostles. Your sects sprang up 1,500 years later, and made up their own ocnfessions and rules. In Germany of all places.
Please do not ping me agian, poth of you. It's a waste of my time.
Doesn't describe at all how I construe Scripture and/or reality.
Well put.
If Christ had intended elites to rule, run, define the church . . .
He'd have much more likely had 12 disciples like the learned Paul and Luke.
He didn't. A cantankerous fiesty fishermen and his cohorts and a tax collector! LOL.
Actually, we can trace our roots to Christ. You trace your only as far back as the current version of tradition takes you.
It is a man-created church. As such, its legitimacy is on the par with Islam, which sprang up out of a man as well.
= = = =
WRONG.
Were it so, Holy Spirit would have NEVER rested on any Protestants . . . yet He HAS blessed countless millions through very heavy and miraculous anointing on many servants of a variety of Protestant stripes and degrees of learning . . . particularly degrees of unlearning.
Clearly, Holy Spirit disagrees with the post I'm responding to.
Actually,
The Romanist politically successful group of "MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" sprang up as theological conquerors a few hundred years after the Apostles of Jesus dusty pathed days.
You actually got that out with a straight face, right? I'm impressed.
Actually,
The Romanist politically successful group of "MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" sprang up as theological conquerors a few hundred years after the Apostles of Jesus dusty pathed days.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I usually have little problem stating the plain historical truth.
You seem to be having trouble stating the Plain Historical Truth (tm) today. Here's some plain historical truth for you: the Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ, has successfully defended the true faith against all manner of heresies, in spite of massive persecution, for almost 2000 years.
I consider it rather difficult to defend anything against anything several hundred years before one's existence.
BTW, Historical revisionism is not the exclusive property of the Romanist Church any more than it is of any other group.
I still consider it rather cheeky so many centuries before Marx to co-opt the MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS gig vis a vis the other Christian leaders around the Mediteranian. But actually, it was more cheeky against Our Lord and His standard of being servant of all vs elitist rulers over all.
He was rather clear to the pharisees how He felt about THAT! LOL.
Here's some plain historical truth for you: the Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ, has successfully defended the true faith against all manner of heresies, in spite of massive persecution, for almost 2000 years.
= = = =
Sounds much MORE like the historical revisionist
HOMELY HISTERICAL HOGWASH (tm),
to me
The Westminster Confession doesn't?
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.