Posted on 12/31/2010 7:33:30 AM PST by bkaycee
Oh, I can't resist this one. wf, we Orthodox are so leery of anything called "holy" that you couldn't even imagine it. One of our favorite jabs at religious phonies in a parish is to call them "the holy people of God"! And remember, we're the one's to regularly remind our "holy hierarchs" that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops!
A Happy and Blessed New Year to you, my friends!
FWIW, I think you've fallen into the error of believing that the theologians who were so prominent in the generations immediately following the end of the Apostolic Era were "Catholics". They were catholic in that they were united by their faith with all other Christians, but they were not subjects of a hierarchy. Thus they were among the universal body of believers, but not a RC hierarchy.
Offcourse, not everything the church fathers wrote was scriptural, but their position on scripture as being the only infallible source of doctrine is clear.
Do you think their attitudes about Scripture were a reflection of Christians in general during this time?
It seems obvious to me that the Holy Spirit was guiding them in recognizing what was Scripture and what wasn't.
Understood...perhaps it is reflexive, one can get in a pattern of (designed) response and actually not realize it is a pattern or tactic when they are using it...it is simply then a defense.
Actually I can. Your church stopped organizationally with the metropolitans and as a result your leaders are viewed as a group of patriarchs equal in rank. The RCC went further and produced a papal monarchy.
Thank you for this post wmfights...understood.
I think that might the case with a lot of them. Obviously we've encountered a fair number that it's just a waste of time trying to post with because all they want to do is feel good defending their church. Usually you can get some kind of a good discussion going with the EO, they still maintain some independence in their thinking.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
..and this is commonly a problem...there's the "other than" or 'additions' or both... which blur distinctions of the vocabulary used. It's like the 'add ons' in various programs....until there's so much junk clarity is lost.
Do you think their attitudes about Scripture were a reflection of Christians in general during this time?It seems obvious to me that the Holy Spirit was guiding them in recognizing what was Scripture and what wasn't.
Absolutely, Tradition and Scripture were pretty much one and the same for them. Tradition being just lessons/teachings/summaries of biblical doctrine.
The ECF's do talk of "tradition" in the form of dates, places, liturgical practices and other non doctrinal issues, but Scripture, for them is THE only apostolic source for doctrine.
There’s a Orthodox church a couple blocks from me I may visit in the near future. I want to see for myself first hand as I did visiting the RC church.
Because there are so many threads with the same people simply repeating their same statements..I am going to be more elective of where I get engaged, otherwise i will continue to waste my time...but it does take awhile to learn who they are.
That's fine. Also obviously, you are not eager to share the significance you place on house churches, that being the norm (as you claim).
Is it your belief that these house churches were autonomous?
No. I make no mistake about early believers bing just believers and not Catholics.
The history of the Catholic church can only trace back to the fourth century. This claim that the RC's have that the Catholic church not only existed from the beginning, but that all the church fathers were by default Catholic and that Jesus Himself even established the RCC is ludicrous.
They're just trying to put their claim of the ONLY path of salvation and on everybody's soul beyond any refutation. Making them Catholics retroactively doesn't make them Catholics. It sounds just like what the Mormons do with their baptizing for the dead. Saying that it is so, doesn't make it so.
Paul addressed that in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 where Paul even lays to rest that doctrine of the papacy by mentioning Peter.
10I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Jesus said that whoever believes in Him has eternal life. HE is the way, the truth, the life and no man comes to the Father but through HIM.
He did not institute the church to be the vehicle for salvation. He did not institute sacraments and tell people that unless they partook, they weren't saved.
Like it or not for the RC's, they have NO claim on anyone's soul. The church's authority extends only to those who willingly put themselves under it. And if they want to take on the burden of trying to work their way to heaven through it, that's their business and between them and God.
AMEN!
Life is imperfect, but God's word is reality. We're supposed to discuss and debate the word of God, and in doing so, we come closer to the one, single truth contained in the Scriptures, authored by the Triune God of all creation.
Our understanding is imperfect. Scripture is not.
Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." -- Psalm 119:103-105 "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Great thread, bkaycee. Thanks for posting it. Webster is terrific.
Saying "I'm not going to do your homework for you" cripples your own argument, since you cannot reasonably refuse to define a term which you yourself introduced into the discussion.
"Get these books (Schaff and Sullivan)"? --- You, the 'sola scriptura' guy, are referencing something not found in any New Testament concordance (the term 'house church') by writers not found in Scripture (Schaff and Sullivan)? So why should I use those books as my authority? They're not Scripture.
You'e either going to have to define and defend it from Scripture alone, or abandon the un-Biblical doctrine of "Scripture alone."
The Word of God is the sole rule of Faith --- on this we both agree --- but the Word of God is more than just what was put into writing in the God-inspired books: more than Scripture alone.
John's Gospel ends with these words: "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
So Jesus, who is the Word of God, did and said and taught more than what was written. That's why He promised the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles to "all truth" (Jn 16:13). "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26).
Otherwise, he would have just said, "Get the book."
If the written Word alone were all that's needed, God need not have sent his Son, and we'd be reading "God so loved the world, that He sent His Son oops, His Book."
And there'd be no need for the Son to send the Holy Spirit; that passage from John 14:26 would read, "But the Holy Spirit oops, the Holy Book, which the Father will send, will teach you all things."
And at no point does the Bible itself call the Bible alone "the pillar and foundation of the truth."
The post was completely wrong beginning with the opening sentence. The Reformation was responsible for fabricating the principle of Sola Scripture out of whole cloth. For all of the bravado and banter from the Sola Scriptura crowd none have ever scripturally substantiated the assertion. The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture. Neither is there anything in Scripture that defines Scripture and establishes a definitive listing of what constitutes legitimate scripture.
For 400 years, there was no agreed upon canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament and there are even different versions of that. There was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters.
Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books by the Apostolic Tradition, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen. The world was largely illiterate and the Gospel was taught and survived largely trough the traditions of the Mass and the cultural festivities.
Sola Scriptura was an intentional limitation and reinterpretation of the Scripture for the benefit of the largely godless German political adversaries of the Holy Roman Empire. The modern day adherents of Sola Scriptura are simply the modern day dupes of the 16th century German princes and their successors who still envy the Church.
Close, Catholics only accept writing vetted by the Vatican. It beats the hell out of relying on the Rev. Billy-Bob Rolex and those with a purely political agenda for theological advice.
Trust in your God-given conscience and the fact He has given eyes to see and ears to hear to those who are His.
Pray for the ability to discern the word of God. It's the way God has chosen to sanctify and instruct His children, according to the teaching of the free gift of the indwelling Holy Ghost.
Christ told us not to rely on men and their errant doctrines nor on magisteriums made up of enfeebled authoritarians who do not understand the word of God.
Rely on Scripture. It is eternal. And when men defy it or deny it or contradict it, the error is obvious to all those given eyes to see.
By its foul, idolatrous teaching of "another Christ" and "other mediators" and "queens of heaven" and "infallible" old men in dresses and "holy" relics and empty rituals, Rome shows itself to be corrupt, and clearly not in alignment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Just pinging the two of you to comment #97. Very difficult to have a civil disagreement, with good manners, with a poster like that. This is typical of open threads. Surely you are familiar?
Considering the opulence in which the pope and his lackeys live, and the history of the Catholic church, it's hysterically laughable that you are criticizing relying on men with a political agenda for theological advice.
The Roman Catholic church's entire history reeks of political agenda.
INDEED.
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.