Posted on 12/28/2013 3:59:04 PM PST by NYer
You’re not getting off so easy!
You claim Paul included traditions, but you won’t share them with me. I can only speculate this is either immensely selfish, or cold, or perhaps you have no earthly idea what traditions Paul meant. Which is it NKP??
If you do not know, admit it humbly. If you do, share it so we may accept them.
Which is it?? Where’s the beef??!
It appears you have absolutely no idea what Paul meant - as does no one else. If no one knows what his traditions were, one shouldn’t pretend it is meaningful to Christians today.
You claimed it. Prove it. If you are unwilling to share your proof for the edification of all, please share why you won’t bless others.
What is your evidence for your claim?
“I stand up for and profess the One, True, Church, and that Church is the Catholic Church. Deal with it. It’s fact.”
Well great, you’ve posted another assertion with no proof. An assertion without proof is a slogan.
If you want to be taken seriously, show us your proof that the roman church is “the one true church”. Or continue to shout slogans for your own comfort...
Where’s the beef???!
On FR your are at least advised to give the page link when posting taking something from that page. Meanwhile, you have just confirmed you want to be one of those careless posters who uncritically parrot RC polemics. And which often are in error on Luther. Which further lessens your credibility
And for the record, I have seen that list of quotes you site and the same argument. Cardinal Bellarmine was Jesuit
Bellarmine was simply one who listed eight earlier authors who added "sola," and was not invoked as one who supported Luther.
As for historical support, Manning had the solution to the problem of ancient evidence that conflicted with Rome:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. ...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. The Church is always primitive and always modern at one and the same time; and alone can expound its own mind, as an individual can declare his own thoughts... — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28
The Patristic Tradition supports his claim. Tradition, which means literally to hand over what was received, is expressed throughout the Patristic Literature. Rather than cite all it, I am sure you can go to this website which is a Reformed Protestant site [although the moderators there do a good job allowing discussion in their forums, I don’t post there, but have read the posts] and it uses the translations by the Reformed Patristic Scholar P. Schaff.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
Among the Fathers citing Tradition, in line with what St. Paul said He handed on what he received e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:23-30]. He also states Traditions that were delivered in 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thes 2:15; 2 Thes 3:6;
would be St. Ireneaus in Against Heresies [Boook 1, Chapter 10]; [Book 2, Chapter 9]; [Book 3, Chapters 3 & 4] [Book 4, Chapter 33]
St. Basil the Great [Letter 125]; [On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 27]
St. John Chrysostem [Homlies on Second Thessalonians]
St. Jerome [Dialogue with the Luciferians, Chapter 8]
St. Augustine [Against Julian, Book 2, Chapter 10], [Letter 54]
Eusebius of Caesara [Church History, Book 3, Chapter 6 on St. Ignatius putting down the Traditon of the Apostles in his Letters].
My little comment, here but if you read this, one it states that St. Ignatius wanted to write down the oral tradition of the Apostles, which he got from Polycarp, who was a pupil of the Apostle John. So His Letters [written around 107AD can be among the earliest written forms of the Tradition of the Apostles that was received by the Catholic Church]
Eusebius of Casara [Church History, Book 6, Chapter 14 on St. Clement and the Tradition of how the Gospels were written and by whom, etc]
Origen [On First Principles, Book 1, Preface 2]
Those, in my opinion, would be a good start with respect to the notion of Sacred Tradition and how the Church received it.
The moderators appreciate a url or link to check for copyright restrictions.
I am glad Polycarp used the portion of To it that he did than the part where fish guts are burned to ward off demons.
40 is 40 :21 is 21
40 does not explain 21. They are separate.
I do like the horse and cart analogy
Please show me the scriptural evidence where the Lord’s Supper is reserved for priests to celebrate. Another inference based on centuries of tradition.
Perhaps a slight misinterpretation. The passage about parts of the body being parts despite what they may think/decide, does not appear to have the purpose of saying that the parts are "interdependent" so much as it is to affirm that once saved in Christ, we are part of His Church from the common thread of the Holy Spirit/Jesus/God the Father being manifested in us compared to those who are not saved.
It is a stretch to say it lays the groundwork to make intercession by other flawed mortals a requirement for salvation.
If that was the polemic behind the "we gave you the Bible" assertion then there would be no contention, except as to their claim.
Tradition is interesting, but is not authoritative.
Tradition isn’t verifiable as being directly from the apostles.
A certain poster on this thread has been asked repeatedly to delineate the traditions Paul referenced in the passage you quoted - and which he clIms are EQUAL to Scripture.
Either he is selfishly guarding them, or is ignorant of the official list, or such a list does not exist. In fact, it is the latter. There is no list. We simply do not know if those traditions were incorporated into Scripture, or if God deemed them NOT part of authoritative Scripture.
No where does Scripture say any tradition is equal to His revelation. And traditions can be wrong.
Tradition supports his claim about tradition. I see... Pfftft
“...not salvific merits...
That is the crux of the matter. Christ IS the unblemished acceptable sacrifice.
It is what we DO with the information that matters next.
“... The works we do as Christians are not salvific.
That is the set up. Catholics DO NOT EVER THINK the works they do are salvific.
NOT EVER. It is His Grace.
We cannot take our works that our blemished. That is the thing that went wrong!!!! We were told that is what Catholics think - that OUR WORKS take the place of HIS.
Catholics do not think this.
The issue is that the verses prior and after do not cause that verse to not say what it says.
Thus we agree on the horse and cart analogy. As I said before to another poster Evangelicals are accused of saying “no works at all period.” I have to remind some we are not antinomians.
When one puts on Christ, there is a LOT of work to do. As He said the harvest is plentiful the workers few. This also...If we love Him we will do what He says. I fully understand when we confess with our mouth Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, the “Lord” portion needs to be understood we are subject to Him and we take all commands from Him.
I can see your point that the context being two different gospel accounts may dilute the point. Meaning Jesus was communicating more than the John reference. I may have gone expository on you without making it clear that I did so. The will of the Father for us to believe He sent His Son and believe in Him is a constant and consistent theme in John’s gospel.
Many thanks for seeing the context.
The Will of the Father - And the natures of our Lord:
Who with thy only begotten Son art One Lord not in the unity of a single person, but in the trinity of a single nature
“I have to remind some we are not antinomians.”
No, but every Christian is necronomian according to Scripture.
If you desire to discuss the Trinity then come on over to the “damnable heresy thread.”
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.