Posted on 01/24/2007 8:41:04 AM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
"Sola Scriptura is about as Biblical as what the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses believe."
And tradition and magisteriam is what the Pharisees believed; so what?
From Moses through John, if it was important for people to remember, and for future generations to know, then it was written down for a permanent record. The Romans and the subsequent Roman Catholic Church observes nothing as authoritative unless it is written down. Thus to argue against the scriptures from which it claims authority is truly hypocritical.
And when you talk of "Tradition", what makes you think that the real Judeo-Christian Tradition did not pass through the Waldensians and all those churches that had a tradition of valuing the Scriptures above the oral teachings and pontifications of even those mere mortal men who served as their pastors.
You say that Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture, but what makes you think that it is not the foundation of Tradition of all the true churches. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, all the early church fathers cited Scripture as the source of authority for the things they wrote about --- not hearsay, rumor, oral traditions. They cited the hard facts of Scripture.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is testified to not only by Scripture itself, but also by that Tradition that you laud so much --- the tradition of the written word over the spoken word, which your post is evidence of. If you think that the oral word is so valuable, then why didn't you deliver this rant of yours orally. Why did you bother to put it in written form?
FYI...there was actually strong Jewish prohibition against writing the Oral Law until well into the Christian era (200? 300?). It was supposed to be passed down orally only.
I'd say they could find people who arrive at the same views within the catholic church. You're just foisting off a straw man argument...not very honest of you.
On the contrary, while there are those within the Catholic Church who arrive at the same views, they Can be held to authority to authoritatively be excommunicated. Those who let 'No Authority Stand Between Them And Scripture' can in effect be their own Popes, following only their own authority. How can you say that THEIR Scriptural interpretation is wrong? Or for that matter, how can you say Authoritatively that the Catholic version is wrong? After all, it comes down to one Christian's interpretation over another.
Yes, I have read the early "fathers" writings. And I notice a divergence of opinions early on about myriad of issues. While their writings may be edifying [or not... depends upon who one reads and what pre-disposition one brings. Think about Origen and Tertullien (sp?)], they are NOT Scripture. If they were, perhaps they would be in the New Testament. Their writings, no matter how prolific, do not rest side-by-side with Scripture.
The only thing here with you is fear of being wrong.
You are correct in one thing: I, like everyone else, don't like to be wrong. However, I have been. And I fully expect the trend to continue. It was the "accident of birth" that saw me raised in the RCC. It was study of Scripture that led me out. It was further study of Scripture that led me away from TULIP Calvinism. I try to remain open to God's instruction. But I don't want Him to have to teach me the same lesson more than once.
Understanding history is to cease to be a Protestant.
I am no Protestant. I acknowledge the RCC members' right to believe in anything they wish. I am no Martin Luther. I do not wish to Reform any church.
As to history causing one to become RCC. I've had plenty of RCC-slanted history thrown my way. And today's secular history completely white-washes the importance of religion to man. To wit, I have read plenty of good books that chronicle the development of Christendom. The more I read and compare such development with Scripture, the more I am convinced that the majority of men has utterly distorted and twisted the original workings of the Body on earth. For this reason, I will not become a member of any hierarchical structured, denomination. The New Testament makes it clear that each local assembly was independent, autonomous, and loosely bound together through their common faith in Christ.
Pope St. Clement I, a student of Sts. Peter and Paul, wrote a commentary on the apostolic preachings around 90 A.D. When did your sect start?
First, there was no Pope Clement I. The term "pope" did not exist in 90 A.D. There was a man named Clement who was a distinguished elder (bishop or overseer if you will) in one of the assemblies in Rome, and he wrote many things.
While it is likely that Clement knew Paul (given that Paul was under house arrest in Rome for two years), I am not aware that he ever encountered Peter, let alone was his student. Especially given that the assemblies in Rome pre-dated even Paul's first trip to Rome (See Acts 28).
Clement's writings may be edifying, but like every other non-Inspired writing they are secondary to Scripture.
The Church I have been added to upon my obedience to the Gospel is spiritual in nature, and began on the day of Pentecost shortly after the Lord's resurrection through the power granted the disciples by the Holy Spirit. My local assembly is an autonomous, independent congregation of like-minded believers modeled after those of the New Testament. How about yours?
Astounding. Thank you.
Better make it a tall one. I'm gonna go read some other threads. Even the Protestants can't come to a consensus betweent themselves on this topic so I"m just stayin' out of it.
sigh
I associate with a non-denominational church of Christ where others that believe in a similar manner attend. We discuss Scripture, and don't always agree.
Now you write:
My local assembly is an autonomous, independent congregation of like-minded believers modeled after those of the New Testament.
You're not "like-minded" you are all practitioners of YOPIOS and prove that sola scriptura doesn't work or else you would all be in complete agreement.
It was further study of Scripture that led me away from TULIP Calvinism.
Further proof of the fallacy of YOPIOS, it just doesn't end. At the start of the Reformation, Luther left the Church. Soon after, Calvin left, but he didn't agree with Luther so he started another group. In the five hundred years since, thousand more splinter groups have sprung up, none of them agree with one another. If scripture was really so "simple" that any Christian could grasp it, none of this would occur.
Circular reasoning? Where?
You are using Scripture to try to prove that Scripture is the Word of God. I could write a book that says that.
And why would that have been??? because the Oral Law of the rabbis was less important and subservient to the Written Law of Moses and the Prophets, according to the first principle of those traditions that grew out of the Law of Moses.
It was written down later as you say when they needed it to overrule and take precedence over the Scriptures which testified against them. The Church East and West has done the same. They have committed the same offense as the Jews by elevating the Oral over the Written. It has fallen into the same trap.
Remember what Jesus said: You cannot serve two masters, You will hate the one and love the other. I hear it said that Tradition and Scripture are co-equal masters in the RCC et al, and yet this post demonstrates the truth of what Jesus said: religious people who love their Tradition but hate the Scriptures. Wake up.
Read the Scriptures: Only those with their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life will enter the Kingdom of Heaven --- not orally but written.
However, when a retread does it, it cannot end well. Bye.
Not sure what YOPIOS is. But I never said we were in complete agreement. I'm not sure that is even possible with any group about anything. Nevertheless, I'll take a healthy discourse of competing ideas over the iron maiden to keep other opinions from seeing the light of day.
Paul instructs Believers to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". He did not say, "entrust your salvation to an organization of man". It is incumbent on each individual Believer to seek truth and apply it in his life. God has provided His truth to us through Scripture. Study it. Apply it. And Pray that God continue to enlighten you with correction.
There's no such thing as "Mary worship". If you're referring to the practice of human beings honoring the Mother of Jesus, that goes back to Luke 1:42
"And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. "
The infallibility of the Pope is not a 19th century invention. The Church always believed, in unity, that the Magisterium is infallible. Infallibilty had to be DEFINED because of the scourge of Protestantism and the trail of souls they drew away from the body of Christ by asserting that the popes were demonic.
The inclusion of the Apocrypha is not a 16th century invention. Pope Damasus announced the canon of the Old and New Testaments at the Council of Rome, issuing the Decretum Gelasianum, which explicitly included the Apocrypha. It wasn't until Luther removed these books that the Church was compelled to DEFINE (that is, bring to FINALITY) any discussion on what comprises Sacred Scripture.
The Assumption of Mary is not a 20th century invention. 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."
The feast, "Memory of Mary", was celebrated in Palestine after the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336. This feast was changed to the "Assumption of Mary" following the Council of Chalcedon I mentioned above.
The witholding of the wine from the laity at communion is a 16th Century invention.
This was in response to the heretic Ultraquists, who insisted that the host did not contain both the body and blood of Jesus - that it was requisite to consume both species. No Catholic needs to receive both species. One or the other suffices.
To become deeper in history is to become jewish.
What is your source for that quote?
But the Church decided upon which books were spurious and which were products of divine inspiration in the 4th century.
Your statement here is false, too. The canon was not even definitively established for purposes of the Roman Church until Trent, and that furthermore, that one of the books decreed by the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage to be canonical to which you refer, Septuagint I Esdras, was later removed by the Council of Trent. So much for the alleged infallibility of the church. By the bizarre, fact-twisting logic that says that canonical books were removed by Protestants, guys such as Pope Gregory the Great, St. Jerome and even the Roman church officials at the Council of Trent must have been Protestants, too.
Before you start talking about protestant lies you should get your own historical facts straight.
Cordially,
Now that's an interesting question that will not be answered because it actually deals with the issue at hand.
Why would the Apostles and those that traveled with them write the Scriptures then?
To become deeper in history is to become Adam & Eve.
Top that! :)
BigMack
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.