Posted on 12/31/2010 7:33:30 AM PST by bkaycee
Wow. All those words, and the point remains missed.
lol. Very well said, r9etb.
The Holy Bible has the answer and tradition has always led to false doctrine because it is changed by those who were given charge to keep and teach it, many who were apostate or unbelievers. Only Scripture should be used to determine the Doctrine of Christ Jesus our Lord and so many traditions are the exact opposite of Biblical Scriptural doctrines. So dangerous.
2 Ti. 3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come . 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded , lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away . 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning , and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further : for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was . 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured : but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution . 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse , deceiving , and being deceived . 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of , knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
All A (teaching of the Church Fathers) is B(from Scripture).
Okay.
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189])."
Therefore, infant baptism, which Irenaeus clearly taught, is scriptural.
You use a non-Catholic site to try to prove a point about the Catholic Church?
Won’t wash at all.
I'm not sure that those who find comfort in an ever changing revelation that conforms to the culture of the day will like it.
This again.
The statement and implication that the early Church relied on the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an absolute fabrication, intended to provide cover and to and reinforce one theologically innovative point of view. The premises regarding the history of the Church from the post-Apostolic era to the Reformation are simply false. Ahistorical nonsense.
But I suppose that the focus on Trent here is proof enough to demonstrate galactically proportioned ignorance of Church history. The article ignores the fact that the first written record of the Canon of New Testament scripture (as it continues to be accepted today) was in the Paschal Letter of +Athanasius of Alexandria in 367. This date falls between the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325) and the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381).
Furthermore, the Bible that the Apostles used, and the scriptures referred to in the New Testament were the Hebrew Scriptures. Specifically the Septuagint, as the Masoretic didn’t exist. And the Hebrew faith was hardly sola scriptura. Midrash, anyone?
Sola scriptura = solus ego. That really is the point, isn’t it?
Lord, have mercy. WHY DO I CONTINUE TO COME HERE?
The only Scripture available to Timothy was the Talmud.
Therefore, we don’t need those silly Gospels or 2 Timothy, for that matter. We have all we need in the Talmud. Stop eating pork and make sure you don’t use the same pan for cooking meat and milk.
See you at synagogue!
Oh wait. I understand that the Scriptures are from the Holy Spirit working THROUGH the saints (i.e., Holy Tradition, which, btw, is what Athanasius was arguing). I guess you’ll have to go to synagogue and give up pork and shellfish without me.
I'm not sure that those who find comfort in an ever changing revelation that conforms to the culture of the day will like it.
Matthew 10:34
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." ;)
Your list is close.
One correction:
Roman Catholicism 1054.
Orthodox Church - Beginning of time.
Now it’s fixed. ;)
How Old Is Your Church
It's pretty old. I think in and around 4 thousand years.
Rom 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”
The teaching of a separate body of Apostolic revelation known as Tradition... which is oral in nature.... originated, not with the Christian Church, but with Gnosticism.
This was an attempt by the gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient....... They stated that they possessed the fullness of apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition,..... and the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.
Just as the early fathers repudiated this teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we.....
Great read!.....Gnostics today make the same claims that they did at the time of the Reformation...unfortunately many do so bearing the badge of Christianity. Somehow they believe they can have one foot on both sides of the fence. It would appear some do not go far enough back in History for the Truth of what the forefathers actually believed, in sola scripture, rather Traditions infilitrated the church later on and today many remain.
You don't have to hold a doctorate in theology to understand that written information is much harder to change than oral information. It seems to me that for Christians the real discussion is about the accuracy of the translation, not what some guys make up in a back room.
Notice how the discussion changes to who's church is older and then quoting theologians who developed new doctrines not found in Scripture. It illustrates why Scripture must be the final authority.
As far as the nonsense about existing from the beginning, every Christian Church has the same claim. The Christians in the era immediately following the end of the Apostolic Era were not bound by a coercive centralized hierarchy, but were unified by a common faith. All Evangelicals hold to the same Gospel they did and are in unison with them because of it. It is the belief in The Gospel that makes us a part of the Body of Christ.
I thought the point was very clear and precise....and an excellant read.
Can you define Sola Scriptura?
To assert Sola Scriptura was the operative thought of the patristic age is unwarranted exercise of poor scholarship and or prideful interpretation of history.
Indeed, Elaine Pagels of Princeton University in her book the Gnostic Gospels uses Irenaeus to denigrate the Church as perverting the message of Christianity. Thus , the reference of any patristic father to scripture would not have a similar definition as it has today and must be viewed in an entirely different context.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral Apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 for the justification for such a claim, where Paul states that he handed on traditions or teachings to this Chruch in both oral and written form. Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an appeal is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines that Paul is referring to which they claim they possess and which are binding upon men. In all the writings of apologists from the Reformation to the present day no one has been able to list the doctrines that comprise this supposed Apostolic Oral Tradition. From Francis De Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is this conspicuous absence. Sungenis is editor of a work recently released on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of Tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. It is 627 pages in length. But not once in the entire 627 pages does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed Apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men. All we are told is that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound therefore to submit to this Church which alone possesses the fulness of God's revelation from the Apostles. But they can't tell us what it is. And the reason is because it doesn't exist. If they are of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures? I defy anyone to list the doctrines Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians.
Isn't it stunning how some things never change. The ideas just get dressed up differently, but they go back to the beginning.
I'm really struck by how those that reject Sola Scriptura seek to recreate the law as the means through which the individual is justified. The mechanism is "tradition", which conveniently can't be scrutinized because it's never been in Scripture.
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.