Posted on 12/12/2006 10:51:32 PM PST by Coleus
Therefore when an RC says "sola scriptura is not in the bible" and someone shows them that it is there they can then say "That's your interpretation but I don't see it therefore it is not in the bible". That's quite a wall you've built.
From your statement, "Mary is the mother of Jesus, the incarnate 2d person of the Godhead," I would guess you would agree. Then your problem is with giving Mary the title "Mother of God" because of "possible confusion." If you understand it correctly, there is NO confusion.
Could you protestants do that though, I mean explain how the books got into the Bible, and why they are true and the one's not in the Bible are either false or partially true?
Revelation certainly wasn't.
Further even if all were written you've done squat to assert St Paul was intimately familiar with each and that the churches he was writing to had a collection of all of them. (History asserts they most likely had one or two at best).
Even in the Roman church I beleive all Bishops are recognized to have that authority not simply the pope.
Am I wrong on that?
Writing of acts aside, what about when the events of Acts were occuring?
You cannot have sola scriptura when scripture wasn't finished being written, and was not in wide distribution.
How is that different from explaining to a non-believer how I know the bible is the Word of God? It's pure faith.
Even if MOST of the New Testament was COULD HAVE written in Paul's lifetime, it wasn't ALL OF IT. Your premise has been about Paul writing in the past tense and then this is used to try to say that nothing valid can be written afterwards. This is simply not true. NOBODY has ever suggested that John's gospel, epistles or Revelation were written before the end of the first century, are you suggesting that these are invalid?
The Title Theotokos
[edit]
Third Ecumenical Council
Theotokos (in Greek, ????????) is a Greek word that means "God-bearer" or "Birth-giver to God."
As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not his Divine nature.
Nestorius' view was anathematized by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), since it was considered to be dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Because Mary is the mother of God the Son, she is therefore duly entitled Theotokos.
Calling Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God (????? ????) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed. The Church acknowledges the mystery in the words of this ancient hymn: "He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos."
The title "Theotokos" continues to be used frequently in the hymns of the Orthodox Church.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos
That is the heresy called 'fideism'.
-A8
Nevertheless, the synoptics, Acts, and Paul's letters comprise the bulk of the NT.
I think Paul asks for his manuscripts to be brought at the end of Colossians and he asks for churches to read one another his letters because there was more already written at that time than we're admitting.
That has not been my premise.
My premise has been to get you to tell me what those traditions are that are already in place.
So far as scripture is concerned, Jesus established the bounds of scripture.
"All those who believe THROUGH THEIR (the Apostles') WORD."
Two theories that I know for certain WAS NOT in place was "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" because they weren't around until Luther made them up and added the word "alone" to Romans in the sixteenth century.
Why deny Christ is God?
Christ also gave the apostles (which includes the 70 apostles) the power to bind and loosen, and he sent the Holy Spirit which he promised would help the apostled remember his sayings even those they had forgotten or hadn't heard.
Why not? Revelation is progressive but just because the NT isn't complete doesn't mean that people were to believe just anything anyone told them.
Faith is heresy?
It's a historical fact that the church fathers determined which books were genuine and which were not. During this same decision making they also distinguished valid Holy Tradition from heresey as well.
It is strange that you would accept their interpretation of what should be scripture and reject their authority over Holy Tradition.
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.