Posted on 11/18/2011 6:13:09 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Unfortunately, you do no understand Catholicism or the the Bible.
Protestants find it easier to draw up straw men about what Catholics believe than to address the scriptural underpinnings of Catholic/Orthodox theology.
I don’t believe in papal bulls as you put it.
The more I looked at how the earliest Christians studied and understood the scriptures, as well as how they lived, the more I discovered that the Protestant “Reformation” was a myth.
The earliest Christians believed a distinction exists between the priesthood of all believers as St. Peter wrote echoing Moses in Exodus 19.6. Yet the Old Covenant established a ministerial priesthood.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a31.htm
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/priesthood_voulgaris.htm#_Toc74193650
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/7_priesthood.html
If you don’t trust men, then you shouldn’t trust St. Paul or the other apostles. Show me the verse where St. Paul claims divine inspiration for his writings?
Do you reject 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6?
How do you know that your sect reads the Bible properly?
From Haydock’s Scriptural Commentary:
Ver. 16. All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, or admonish, to instruct others in justice, and in the ways of virtue, that thus he who is a man of God, a minister of the gospel, may be perfect and instructed unto every good work. But when our adversaries of the pretended reformation, undertake from these four verses to shew, first, that every ignorant man or woman is hereby warranted to read and put what construction his or her private spirit, or private judgment, suggests upon all places of the holy Scriptures; and secondly, that the Scriptures alone contain all truths which a Christian is bound to believe; or at least, that the Scriptures teach him all things necessary to salvation, without regard to the interpretation and authority of the Catholic Church: I may at least say (without examining at present any other pretended grounds of these assertions) that these consequences are very remote from the text and sense of St. Paul in this place. As to the first, does this follow; the Scriptures must be read by Timothy, a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister of the gospel, whose office it is to instruct and convert others, therefore they are proper to be read and expounded by every ignorant man or woman? Does not St. Paul say elsewhere, (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) that many adulterate and corrupt the word of God? does not St. Peter tell us also, (2 Peter iii. 16.) that in St. Paul’s epistles are some things....which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own perdition? See the preface to the Gospel of St. John, where reasons are brought for which it was requisite that the Church should put some restraint to the abuse which the ignorant made of reading the Scriptures in vulgar tongues. As to the second consequence, does it follow: every Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for St. Timothy, for a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister and preacher of the gospel, to teach and instruct, and conduce to bring both him and others to salvation; therefore they contain all things that a Christian need to believe? &c. Is not every Christian bound to believe that the books in the canon of the New and Old Testament are of divine authority, as in particular these two epistles of St. Paul to Timothy? Where does the Scripture assure us of this? But of this elsewhere. (Witham) -— Every part of divine Scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, (that is, with the Old Testament alone) nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles and the interpretation of the Church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it. (Challoner)
St. John Chrysostom comments on 2 Timothy 3:16
2 Timothy 3:16, 17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. [R.V.: Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable, etc.]
Having offered much exhortation and consolation from other sources, he adds that which is more perfect, derived from the Scriptures; and he is reasonably full in offering consolation, because he has a great and sad thing to say. For if Elisha, ho was with his master to his last breath, when he saw him departing as it were in death, rent his garments for grief, what think you must this disciple suffer, so loving and so beloved, upon hearing that his master was about to die, and that he could not enjoy his company when he was near his death, which is above all things apt to be distressing? For we are less grateful for the past time, when we have been deprived of the more recent intercourse of those who are departed. For this reason when he had previously offered much consolation, he then discourses concerning his own death: and this in no ordinary way, but in words adapted to comfort him and fill him with joy; so as to have it considered as a sacrifice rather than a death; a migration, as in fact it was, and a removal to a better state. For I am now ready to be offered up 2 Timothy 4:6, he says. For this reason he writes: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. All what Scripture? All that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, From a child you have known the holy Scriptures. All such, then, is given by inspiration of God; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
For doctrine. For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.
That the man of God may be perfect. For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!
Read the Pope of Alexandria Shenouda III’s commentary on the scriptures regarding the priesthood.
http://tasbeha.org/content/hh_books/Priesthd/index.html
His approach is almost exclusively drawn from the Bible.
I think the problem is that most Calvinists don’t understand what Arminius actually taught about free will. Remember, Arminius agreed with Calvin on the depravity of man. And I believe some of you can testify that I have, in many posts, said that apart from God’s intervention, no man would ever think about God. Fallen man, left on his own, remains fallen. Period.
Now, let’s jump over salvation for a moment, and look at the state of a man who has rejected God - either because he chose to reject God (Arminian), or because God would not allow him to accept the offer (Calvin).
God judges the heart. The problem of sin is not open to accounting. The problem is not that on 7 Sept 2007, Mr Rogers did X. The problem is rebellion against God. A believer still falls, but his basic nature has changed. He has switched allegiance, and WANTS to obey God - but wrestles with ‘the flesh’. The unbeliever doesn’t wrestle, because he hasn’t been born again. There is no new nature there to reject sin.
Thus Jesus said that men would be condemned for not believing. Not for a specific sin on a given day, but for not believing.
I think it is well established in scripture, and in detail in Romans 1, that those who reject God may be given over by God to the evil of their hearts. I also think that scripture teaches that God can and will then cause those men to do certain things. A man who has rejected God does NOT have free will. And if God makes him do something ‘wrong’, it doesn’t increase the man’s guilt, because a man’s guilt or innocence before God, according to Jesus, is if he believes God or not.
So what is free will, according to Jacob Arminius? [And I want to point out that the answer is coming from me. I think Arminius taught this, but I don’t spend time reading his writings.] However, as I understand it, Arminius taught that God gives prevenient grace to men. Prevenient merely means “antecedent, anticipatory”, so prevenient grace is just the grace of God acting before any response or action by man. It means the Holy Spirit has already acted, and is revealing God by God’s initiative to man.
Here is where Calvin and Arminius split. Calvin says that God’s prevenient grace is irresistible - that any time God reveals himself to a man he has chosen by name from before time, that man MUST accept the revelation. Arminius taught that God’s prevenient grace is given in some measure to every man (Romans 1) and can be resisted by man. That is, I think, what Arminius meant by ‘free will’. Not that all men get to do whatever they please, but that when God reveals himself to man, man can choose to accept (believe God) or reject (not believe).
If a man rejects God, God may or may not give up on him. God knows the heart (John 6) and he knows who will respond in time (Nicodemus), and who will never respond (Judas). And if the man will never respond, then God abandons him - as discussed in Romans 1: “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” and in Genesis 6: “Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
But notice what came first: “For even though they knew God...”
Those who believe in an accounting system (good deeds give you merits, bad one demerits, and God’s judgement totals up your score) say this makes God unjust, because he is making the man do something “wrong”. But God does NOT judge on the accounting system. “18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” A man who does not believe God is not made any less a believer because he does a specific sin on a specific day.
Further, the acts done by those whose hearts God hardens in scripture are not evil, by themselves. Pharaoh refused to free his slaves. That was not, of itself, an evil act by the morals of the day. God hardened his heart, but not to commit an evil act.
Now, let’s look at the objections of Db88:
“I mean, if one does not catch the manipulation of history here, one has his head so trained to love “free will” that they cannot, no will not, hear this episode is (and all episodes are) being played out as God’s script. That is how God by His predetermined plan got His own Son crucified on the precise day needed to fulfill prophecy. The Scriptures are replete with such manipulation and control.”
False. God can and will intervene, although the scriptures don’t make it seem he does so very directly very often. There are a limited number of times scripture says God hardens someone’s heart, and it is usually done with a leader. “harden” and “heart” is found in 5 verses of the KJV, and 2 of those apply to hardening their own hearts. “hardened” and “heart” occurs in 23 verses in the KJV. It is used of Pharaoh, Sihon king of Heshbon, and of the nation Israel in Isaiah. That is not an all-inclusive list, but it should suffice to show that God hardening someone’s heart isn’t exactly a daily occurrence.
And there is something else to note: it says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, not that God changed it. Pharaoh still did what Pharaoh wanted to do. Someone’s resolve cannot be hardened unless they first have the resolve. Someone’s heart cannot be said to be hardened unless they first desired that course of action.
With regard to the Jews of Paul’s day, their hardness of heart is based on their unbelief:
“17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.”
Look at 20: “They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.” Paul does NOT say they were rejected because their names were not on God’s list. He does not say God’s election of individuals (something Paul NEVER discusses) determines it - but belief. “their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith”.
And we Gentiles are warned not to become proud or calloused ourselves, but to “continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”
Db88 writes: “The number of possible derailments from a prophet’s predicted outcome are beyond infinite, if each man’s decisions could be nearly infinite. Add the infinite possibilities of the weather, a rock falling from the ledge, a big dog scaring the man away and you have no possibility of a prophet getting anything right. Not if every man is truly free in every decision. Not even God can know.”
Again, this confuses fore-knowing with compelling. Being finite beings wrapped up in time, there are no perfect analogies to fore-knowing perfectly. That he directly intervenes at times is undeniable. He raised Pharaoh for His glory. I take that to mean he choose an unbelieving, obstinate man and placed him in power as Pharaoh, and he then hardened Pharaoh’s heart, making the rescue of Israel as hard as possible - to demonstrate God’s power.
On the political side, I believe God has raised up Obama to test America. Will we harden our hearts, or repent? But that doesn’t mean Obama is being made to do something he does not want to do - just that God has placed the person there as a test of America’s morality.
There are only a handful of times scripture talks about God hardening the heart of an individual, and most of those pertain to a political leader. There are thousands of times man is said to make decisions.
Abraham believed. Subject, verb. Subjects DO verbs. We never find God giving saving faith to anyone as a gift. We never find Paul saying, “When God gave me belief”, or Jesus saying, “If I give you belief”. Instead, we find people rebuked for lacking belief, or even Jesus being surprised by the Centurion’s belief.
This is in complete accord with Arminian thought - that when God reaches down to us, WE are responsible for our response to Him. It is in direct contrast to Calvin’s thought, since Calvin would need scripture to say, “And Abraham was given belief, and the belief he received was counted as righteousness.”
When Jesus said, “Repent and believe the Gospel”, Jesus wasn’t mocking those around him. He gave them a choice. In John 6, we see divine hardening at work. Many there are following Jesus, but their hearts don’t care about Jesus. And Jesus confronts them, and raises the confrontation higher and higher, until most leave him. He hardens their hearts. But some remain, and their hearts have been hardened FOR Jesus.
The error of Calvin was ignoring thousands of verses so he could dwell on a couple dozen, independent of context. Maybe that is what happens when you write a systematic theology text in your twenties. Or maybe it came from reading too much of Augustine, and too little of the gospels.
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Jesus is telling men to DO something, and also that refusing has consequences:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” - John 5
How do I know “my sect” reads the bible correctly?
I do not assume they do.
I believe we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (not relying on a priestly class) - see Phil 2:12-13
Likewise I believe we should prove all things, searching the scriptures ourselves (rather than relying on others) Act 17:11 says the Bereans were more noble than others (early christians) because they did not accept what Paul said just because he was Paul, rather they searched the scriptures to see if what he said were true!
In other words, THEY DID NOT TRUST PAUL — they checked to see if what he said were TRUE!
If they were complemented for such actions, why would someone who is lesser than Paul (being maybe at best a successor, a “Pope”), be trusted any more than Paul was?
There is no benefit in being an “early Christian” in terms of a better argument. Early followers got things wrong, too, and were chastised for it. Early just means they were early. That does not indicate they were more correct, more Godly than today.
But how can we be sure we can find the way? Don’t people need to be told, or led by “men of God”?
Let’s see what God says about the knowledge of God....
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
WE are WITHOUT EXCUSE. No one can say “I didn’t know” or “The Pope did this or that wrong”, or “I was in a bad church”, or whatever-— God himself (through the agency of the Holy Spirit) lets us know what is right or wrong.
The islander who never saw a bible know the difference between good and evil. The problem is not that man does not know, it’s that he does not embrace the light.
IF we are serious, we will study our bible, and God will continue to enlighten us with wisdom, and the knowledge of God, and salvation.
I am walking with God. I am not perfect. But I place my faith in Jesus, not some Protestant TV preacher or Pope in a Popemobile.
How do I know “my sect” reads the bible correctly?
I do not assume they do.
>> So then you are saying it is actually impossible to understand what the Bible means.
I believe we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (not relying on a priestly class) - see Phil 2:12-13
>> I never heard a Catholic priest say we should do otherwise. But Jesus established the sacred mysteries as a way to confirm our faith and as conduits for us to receive his grace.
I search the scriptures and find ample evidence for my faith. I follow the priest, bishops and the Pope as long as they are faithful to scripture and Tradition. Otherwise they are heretics who must be resisted.
There is no benefit in being an “early Christian” in terms of a better argument. Early followers got things wrong, too, and were chastised for it. Early just means they were early. That does not indicate they were more correct, more Godly than today.
>> I’d say the earliest apostolic Christians didn’t have the distortions of the centuries or contemporary distortions to contend with. Considering they were far closer the source than either of us, I’d say they give us a good benchmark, especially in an era where truth has become relative.
The fruits of Sola Scriptura has been the abandonment of Christianity because it really means Sola Meum. Me alone. My will. My thinking. And no one can tell me what is true.
Relativism is the end result of rejecting Holy Tradition as the arbiter for how to properly interpret scripture.
BereanBrain, you have placed your conscience and your judgment above scripture.
I humble myself to the judgment of the orthodox teachers of all ages, all times, and all places to ensure that my limited knowledge and my limited cultural context doesn’t cause me to twist the scriptures.
St. Vincent of Lerins AD 434:
“(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.”
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.asp
You have placed tradition where it should NOT be, calling it “Holy”.
It is not. Tradition is of man. It cannot be Holy. Only God is Holy. The Father, Son and Spirit. Not Mary, either. Neither is she co-redemptrix.
I do not place my intellect above anything either. I place the action of the Holy Spirit above that of the doctrines and teachings of man.
The Holy Spirit works in us to make clear to us what purpose God has in mind for us. The Spirit guides us though several ways:
1) through Scripture. As we steep ourselves in it, the Spirit that moves it moves us more and more.
2) through circumstances (Acts 16:10), bringing about endings and beginnings, opportunities and completions, opening and closing doors to the hallways of life.
3) through other believers, as happened in choosing the first seven deacons (Acts 6), and with the church in Antioch in sending Paul and Barnabas out on their mission (Acts 13). (In no way is this a sure thing; everyone else can be very wrong. But it is one way the Spirit sometimes uses for showing us what to do.)
4) through prayer. Paul speaks of the peace of Christ ruling in our hearts when we pray about our decisions.
Why “Solo” Scriptura Must Be Rejected
The revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura has become so entrenched in the modern church that many Protestant Christians today will sympathize more with the sentiments of the liberal and sectarian clergymen quoted above than they will with the teaching of the reformers. The doctrine of “solo” Scriptura, however, is as problematic and dangerous today as it was in previous centuries. It remains unbiblical, illogical, and unworkable. Here I will address some of the more obvious problems.
The fundamental problem with “solo” Scriptura is that it results in autonomy. It results in final authority being placed somewhere other than the Word of God. It shares this problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine. The only difference is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final authority in the church while “solo” Scriptura places final authority in each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a final standard, and that final standard is the individual’s personal judgment of what is and is not biblical. The result is subjectivism and relativism. The reformers’ appeal to “Scripture alone,” however, was never intended to mean “me alone.”
The Bible itself simply does not teach “solo” Scriptura Christ established his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church those who are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4). When disputes arose, the apostles did not instruct each individual believer to go home and decide by himself and for himself who was right. They met in a council (Acts 15:6-29). Even the well-known example of the Bereans does not support “solo” Scriptura (cf. Acts 17:10-11; cf. vv. 1-9). Paul did not instruct each individual Berean to go home and decide by himself and for himself whether what he was teaching was true. Instead, the Bereans read and studied the Scriptures of the Old Testament day by day with Paul present in order to see whether his teaching about the Messiah was true.
In terms of hermeneutics, the doctrine of “solo” Scriptura is hopeless. With “solo” Scriptura, the interpretation of Scripture becomes subjective and relative, and there is no possibility for the resolution of differences. It is a matter of fact that there are numerous different interpretations of various parts of Scripture. Adherents of “solo” Scriptura are told that these different interpretations can be resolved simply by an appeal to Scripture. But how is the problem of differing interpretations to be resolved by an appeal to another interpretation? All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to “solo” Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters. This is subjectivism and relativism run amuck. The proponents of “solo” Scriptura rightly condemn the hermeneutical tyranny of Rome, but the solution to hermeneutical tyranny is not hermeneutical anarchy.
The doctrine of “solo” Scriptura also faces historical problems due to the fact that it cannot be reconciled with the reality that existed in the first decades and centuries of the church. If “solo” Scriptura were true, much of the church had no standard of truth for many years. In the first century, one could not walk down to his local Christian bookstore and buy a copy of the Bible. Manuscripts had to be hand-copied and were not found in every believer’s home. The first books of the New Testament did not even begin to be written until at least ten years after the death of Christ, and some were not written until several decades after Christ. Gradually some churches obtained copies of some books, while other churches had copies of others. It took many years before the New Testament as we know it was gathered and available as a whole. Even then, it too was hand-copied, so it was not available in the home of every individual Christian. If the lone individual is to judge and evaluate everything by himself and for himself by measuring it against Scripture, as proponents of “solo” Scriptura would have it, how would this have possibly worked in the first decades of the church before the New Testament was completed?
One of the most self-evident problems related to the doctrine of “solo” Scriptura is the question of the canon. If one is going to claim that Scripture is the only authority whatsoever, it is legitimate to ask how we then define what is and is not “Scripture.” Proponents of “solo” Scriptura claim that Scripture is authoritative but cannot say with any authority what Scripture is. The table of contents in the front of the Bible is not itself an inspired text written by a prophet or an apostle. It is, in a very real sense, a creed of the church declaring what the church believes to be the content of Scripture. One way to illustrate the problem “solo” Scriptura faces in connection with the canon is simply to ask the following: How would “solo” Scriptura deal with a modern day Marcion? How, for example, would a proponent of “solo” Scriptura argue with a person who claimed that the real New Testament includes only the books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and Revelation? He can’t appeal to the church, to history, or to tradition. A self-consistent adherent of “solo Scriptura” would have no way to respond to such a view because, as one such consistent adherent informed me in personal correspondence, it is the right and duty of each individual Christian to determine the canonicity of each biblical book by and for himself. This is the only consistent position for a proponent of “solo” Scriptura to take, but it is self-defeating because it destroys any objective notion of Scripture. One cannot appeal to the biblical authority of Romans, for example, if each believer determines for himself whether Romans is in fact to be considered a canonical and authoritative biblical book.
The question of the canon is not the only theological problem caused by “solo” Scriptura. Another serious problem is the fact that the adoption of “solo” Scriptura destroys the possibility of having any objective definition of what Christianity is and is not. “solo” Scriptura destroys the very concepts of orthodoxy and heresy. If the authority of the ecumenical creeds is rejected, and if each individual believer is to determine all questions of doctrine by and for himself, then the definitions of orthodoxy and heresy are completely relative and subjective. One man judges the doctrine of the Trinity to be biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. One judges open theism biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. The same is true with respect to every other doctrine. Each man defines Christianity as it seems right in his own eyes.
Finally, it must be realized that “solo” Scriptura ignores reality. The Bible simply did not drop out of the sky into our laps. We would not even be able to read a Bible for ourselves were it not for the labors of many others including archaeologists, linguists, scribes, textual critics, historians, translators, and more. If “solo” Scriptura were true, it should be possible to give untranslated ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of biblical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphal texts to some isolated tribe member somewhere on earth, and with no one’s assistance, that individual should be able to learn the Hebrew and Greek languages, read the various manuscripts, determine which of them are canonical, and then come to an orthodox understanding of the Christian faith. The reason this is not possible, however, is because “solo” Scriptura is not true. It is an unbiblical distortion of the truth.
The revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura has been a source of great damage to the cause of Christ. The magisterial reformers were right to reject the early versions of it that appeared in the teaching of some radicals. Contemporary heirs of the reformers must follow the magisterial reformers here. The fight must be fought on two fronts. We are not only to reject the Roman Catholic doctrine (whether the two-source doctrine of Tradition 2 or the sola ecclesia doctrine of Tradition 3), which places final autonomous authority in the church. We must also reject the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura, which places final autonomous authority in the hands of each and every individual.
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main
I like and respect you both. It is interesting to watch the dialogue. I couldn't help myself.
Please...to liken God's foreknowledge to hearing a score on the radio before one watched it is, well, laughable. Both of you should know better.
God is out of Time, which is construct within which we reside. He is the Alpha and Omega; there is no 'future' to Him. He knows all.
So therefore, it is exactly as if He has watched every football game already that will ever be played.
Come on, fellas. The "free will"/randomness world belongs to the misunderstandings of the pagans. The believers in Christ actually think God is God.
Then why does the Bible tells us with such repetition that we must do if we in fact have no choice?
Show me one Catholic who believes that.
Calvin's secret police were the model of the Stasi in East Germany.
Exodus 22: 31 And ye shall be holy men unto me.
You must start searching Scripture daily if you are to live up to your screen name.
I was speaking (if you bother to read) about the Traditions of MEN, not the Traditions of God.
Tradition of Men
The scriptures hold warnings against any traditions, customs, precepts, or laws that are in opposition to, contradictory to, that nullify (or do away with) God’s commands as written in the scriptural record. These customs, rituals, practices are inventions and traditions of men — alone, apart from God. We must be cautious of the emptiness of the traditions of men passed down through time ... even those from our own forefathers or elders.
1 Peter 1:18-19, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Scripture therefore determines whether tradition is acceptable.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
We see that Jesus and His early disciples warned strongly against any tradition or law that caused any transgression or nullification of God’s laws.
Then there are the Traditions of God
This truth is further supported in the scripture and we can see in 2Thessalonians 3:6 ¶ Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition [paradosis i.e. law or ordinance] which he received of us. 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
Now the “traditions” of the apostles was what? Why the same tradition they learned from both the scriptures and the Lord Jesus Christ [Y’shua Messiah], of course! Are the ways of God outlined in the Old Testament? Are they not adhered to, and even expounded upon, by Jesus in the New Testament? Yes, of course they are.
We show you that the apostles taught these precepts both verbally and written, as any good preacher would do today, speaking of a scripture(s) (or a precept outlined in scripture) and then expounding upon it. The scripture is what gave credence to the speaker. The spoken words had to be in accord with the scripture or the person was not to be listened to. We see that Paul taught these precepts verbally and by written letters of faith (epistle). We also take note that both forms of transmission carried the same data!
2Thessalonians 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions [paradosis i.e. law or ordinance]which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
There weren’t scriptural rules and then also different rules transmitted orally. These were the same precepts taught by either method to some individuals - and both to others. One did not supercede or contradict the other. One did not contain information that the other didn’t. Paul wrote that they should obey the ‘paradosis’ whether you heard it, or read it, or heard it read. God’s word is true whether spoken or written. Thanks be to Him that the spoken words of God that we needed to know, along with the spoken words of the prophets, were written down into the scrolls that would later comprise the Old Testament. Thanks also to Him for the spoken words of Jesus and the apostles that also were preserved in written form.
1Corinthians 11:1 ¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances [paradosis i.e. tradition], as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the hea.d of Christ is God.
I don’t like your insulting tone — Do you really think I don’t read my bible?
I have plenty of time, since I am not reading opinions of men.
John Calvin had a similarities with Muhammad Wahhab the founder of Wahhabism.
I have plenty of time, since I am not reading opinions of men.
>>Other than your own.
holy in the verse you quoted is the meaning “set aside” not Holy as in God’s Perfection. Man CANNOT reach perfection on this earth.
If you think you can be HOLY as in God’s Holyness on earth, please let me know, there are a lot of people who can watch you as an example.
The only human who was ever perfect was Jesus.
If you argue we CAN be holy as in God’s standard, then we are all failing, no? Why would God command us to be something we can’t?
I quoted 3 papal bulls stating who is saved and who is not (in particular stating that everybody outside the Catholic church is going to hell). I think 3 examples should suffice.
WHen you loose a scriptural debate, you sink to childish responses.
Real Christian of you.
We cannot, this side of Heaven, yet Jesus commands it.
Matthew 5: 48 So be perfect,* just as your heavenly Father is perfect.d
So what are you going to do? Ignore Him?
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.