Posted on 03/26/2008 5:30:38 PM PDT by annalex
Where else do evangelicals get their truth?
I like the way Dwight thinks. :-)
If its true that the apostles were the ones to interpret Scripture, and the apostolic Church was therefore the one to interpret Scripture, does that same apostolic authority exist today? If so, where can we find it?
Nothing about the post was about Fourty Seven, I just reposted his post word for word because it was a good explanation. If I was being critical, I would have pinged.
Through the holy spirit for one.
Please add me to your ping list. Thanks!
The written scripture exists so that when an individual or an institution begins to go astray, the sin situation can be detected and/or corrected. Christ himself referred to Old Testament canon when he denounced the religious authorities for substituting the traditions of the Talmud for the authentic commands from the Torah and the prophets.
What ever oral traditions that are true and of “good report” that are proclaimed by any Ecclesiastical Authority “worthy of being followed”, they cannot be in contradiction to scripture and of the life of Jesus Christ.
Oral traditions and “Talmudic” style interprative extrapolations of biblical canon must never supercede the biblical canon itself!
“Of course, as an aside, Father could ask the historical Protestants “on what basis did/do you believe you have the authority to leave the Church, and reject apostolic succession?” This line of questioning (IMO) would lead to constructive criticism of those churches which hold to solA scriptura”
By the same Authority that Christ himself broke with and denounced the religious authorities of his day, by pointing out the hypocrisy of their lives in line with what Moses and the prophets had actually written in the old testament(sola scriptura argument), not by what talmudic traditions had taught.
When the Catholic Church suffered its biggest schisms via the Reformation, it was in a sinful state. The “shepherd” had been struck through her own sin and arrogance, would you not expect the sheep to scatter and attempt to gather around its strongest remaining Rams?!!
It takes a lot of faith to believe that any doctrine not found in the bible man made and false. It takes a lot of faith to believe that a billion Catholics are misguided.
Most Christians who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church don’t spend a lot of time worrying one way or another about what Catholics believe. Our faith in Christ isn’t influenced one way or another about whether other folks may be mistaken in their faith.
“It takes a lot of faith to believe that any doctrine not found in the bible man made and false. It takes a lot of faith to believe that a billion Catholics are misguided.”
I think the issue has to do with man made doctrines that when followed, produce spiritual lives that are in opposition to to a life authenticated in scripture as Christ like and pure! If however one follows an oral tradition or doctrine that with other scripture,prayer and meditation leads you to to a closer walk with Christ then obviously that tradition or oral doctrine has merit.
I seriously doubt that an entire one billion ‘registered as such’ Catholics are entirely misguided, but we also need to remember that God once destroyed the entire world saving only 8 souls. It is possible that a great mass of folks in all stated churches(both Catholic and Protestant) are all following wrong paths. God seeks those who worship him in their hearts, who do so “in spirit and in truth”, he is not necessarily guided by the consensus of a billion Catholics.
Many Christians that have friends or family that are involved in the RCC spend a lot of time wondering if the heresies of the RCC are such that their friends/family are not even Christians.
I'm a little fuzzy on your phrase "produce spiritual lives".
I seriously doubt that an entire one billion ‘registered as such’ Catholics are entirely misguided, but we also need to remember that God once destroyed the entire world saving only 8 souls. It is possible that a great mass of folks in all stated churches(both Catholic and Protestant) are all following wrong paths. God seeks those who worship him in their hearts, who do so “in spirit and in truth”, he is not necessarily guided by the consensus of a billion Catholics.
He is certainly not guided by the concensus of a billion RCs.
I’m a little fuzzy on your phrase “produce spiritual lives”.
How about the term “spiritual fruits” then as in “by their fruits you will know them”.
The Holy Spirit works within a soul to produce a Christ like nature, there-fore any oral doctrines or traditions that may not be strictly found in scripture that never -theless assist that soul in its growth will have no opposition by the Holy Spirit. That soul will produce fruit
and a Godly character over time!
Other extra biblical doctrine, while being accepted/promoted by a given ecclesiastical authority, that works in opposition to the work of the Holy Spirit within a person will stunt the growth of that person producing little, or no, or even evil fruit.
That is why many believers look askance at oral traditions and teachings that may have no antecedents in scripture. Do such doctrines produce good spiritual fruit when adhered to? Are they true, good,beautiful and of “good report” as Paul stated? Then we may ‘dwell on those things’. Other wise we are to stick to the gospels!
sola scriptura states that there is a role for tradition, it’s simply lower than Scripture just like any other source of knowledge
Yes. In that regard, it is useful to separate the Protestants in two groups, one that doesn't aknowldege ANY authority in the matter of the faith other than the scripture (as truncated in their tradition), and the other that acknowledges that the Early Church (never identified as Catholic and Orthodox) put together the scripture, but denies authority of the Catohlic (or Orthodox) church from some historical point onward. The article chiefly addresses the error of the first group.
What can we say to the second group? If they acknowledge the authority of the Early Church, but reject the Catholic authority today, then they should be able to (1) point out where the Catholic Church of today separated herself from the Early Church, and (2) study the expression of authority in the Early Church and submit to it as superior to what modern thinkers might think about the Holy Scripture.
On (1) the historical Protestants are vague and concentrate on abuses of the penance system such as sale of indilgencies and Roman splendor of 15c. This still leaves out the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and the corrections instituted at Trent.
On (2), I don't see any effort to study, say, pre-Nicean fathers of the Church such as Irenaeus, Ignatius or Cyprian. Instead, the least early of the pre-medieval Fathers and the most Westernized, Augustine is the only Early Church father read in the Protestant circles. His mentor Ambrose even is not read. If the "historical Protestants" kept their intellectual committment to the Early Church which gave them the scripture, they would end up in a hierarchical on the episcopal level, sacramental, heavily liturgical and liturgically conservative Orthodox Church, which denies the uniquely Protestant doctrines with no less vigor than Rome.
I don't trust that at all.
Excellent post, I look forward to any replies.
Thanks for the heads up Salvation! I don’t take any offense for not being pinged (to post 14), for the record, however I am glad I was pinged eventually because this post of annalex’s is very interesting to me.
Oh wow, I got a ping after all, thanks annalex. I think I might have to go back to “comments” in my “Pings”; the “full” does take up a lot more space. At any rate, should prove to be a good thread, I think.
I'd say right there in the 1st Century...
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony "inspired truth." And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting: "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write" (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.
There's no reason to believe that your church fathers that you cite are not the same people Paul is referring to in his epistles...
As the article states, there is no evidence of Apostolic succession in the scriptures but these 'fathers' of yours promote their own apostolic succession...
It is “good form” to ping a poster you are quoting regardless of the reason for quoting him/her.
To put it another way, if we accept the voice of the Church as infallibly correct, then what Scripture says about these questions is ultimately irrelevant.
Not if the Church infallibly says, as the Catholic Church has over and over again, that the Scriptures are authoritative and without error. ... DUH.
To cite but one example, Scripture very plainly says, "There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). Nonetheless, the Catholic Church insists that Mary is her Son's "co-mediatrix."
He can't even get the titles right. It's "Mediatrix of all graces" and "co-redemptrix", not "co-mediatrix".
You guys ought to read somebody who can interact with Catholicism as something other than a cartoon cutout. They have to be out there. Jaroslav Pelikan could, but he's Orthodox now.
This article is pathetic.
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.