Posted on 01/03/2014 12:22:14 PM PST by redleghunter
As we established yesterday, the official Catholic position on Scripture is that Scripture does not and cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted by the Church's teaching authority, and in light of "living tradition." De facto this says that Scripture has no inherent authority, but like all spiritual truth, it derives its authority from the Church. Only what the Church says is deemed the true Word of God, the "Sacred Scripture . . . written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records."
This position obviously emasculates Scripture. That is why the Catholic stance against sola Scriptura has always posed a major problem for Roman Catholic apologists. On one hand faced with the task of defending Catholic doctrine, and on the other hand desiring to affirm what Scripture says about itself, they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible's true meaning. Quite plainly, that makes tradition a superior authority. Moreover, in effect it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tr adition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant. Understandably, sola Scriptura has therefore always been a highly effective argument for defenders of the Reformation.
(Excerpt) Read more at gty.org ...
Correct Paul discusses this as well.
It also has to do with the object of one’s faith. If a Muslim searches the NT looking for the 5 pillars of Islam they will be sorely disappointed.
That's the point...There's nothing in the scriptures that tell us that Christ is going to borrow someone's hands to turn bread into his flesh; and that it will still taste, look and feel and test to be bread...Jesus never said he would transform or needed to transform anything...
It is a practice invented by men...
And then you tell us, contrary to clear scripture that this practice is required for salvation, in spite of John the apostle clearly disagreeing with you...
One definitely needs to continue searching the scriptures to get the answers that deal with these issues rather than turn it over to unbiblical traditions of men...
And how do you know the child molesting priest was not a child of the devil???
I believe the divide is based on the difference of infused and reckoned righteousness.
When your toolbox is almost empty, ya still have to use the tools you got to work with...
I understand your point. It is clear to me from both statements those that seek the Lord while He may be found and call upon Him while He is near, with a humble repentant heart will not be disappointed. I think of Cornelius and how faithful God was to go out of the way to have Peter travel at the urging of Roman soldiers so that Cornelius could hear the Gospel, believe and be baptized. Then we have Paul who had no desire to serve Jesus and was set to kill as many followers of Him. Yet God sovereignly scoops him up.
If Scripture and Tradition are not mutually exclusive then is one superior to the other? By now we can answer that Scripture is.
Does Scripture require someone to interpret it? Of course! That fell to the holy spirit and so the Scriptures provide the identifying marks of those who are being directed by holy spirit.
Tradition simply cannot do that
Thank you for the blessing. May I reciprocate:
Luke 18:9-14 KJV
And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Mark thanks again for the candid and polite discussion. On the irresistible Grace, I see that as well as God only knowing. As I posted to another a wise man once told me “the Calvinists are a bit too confident and the Arminians are worry warts...We do well to listen to both of them”:)
I believe that advice is very scriptural. I am confident God will see me through sanctification and glorification, yet I know I am expected not to be “comatose” through the process. For when we are saved by His Grace much is given to us which means much is expected. He saves us for His purpose and I believe that is to glorify Him. I must, through faith in Him live in obedience to Him. I think I paraphrased Athanasius a bit there:)
God Bless.
Athanasius was a warrior for Christ. We shall agree on that.
I know the man on the box is supposed to be Luther but it sure looks like Sam Kinison.
Acts 10:34-48 KJV
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judæa, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
I think he means well or just gets bored. In reality I think he is Pope Francis’ interpreter everyone in the Catholic caucus wants fired:)
Amen. That Romans 10 reference is powerful.
One reference is 2 Timothy 3:14-17. Luke 24 is another.
LOL get a new schtick, this one getting old.
Perhaps the following may address your questions:
Romans 10:5-21 KJV
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel.
For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
Alexander Hislop’s “The Two Babylons” is an interesting read on Euhemerism and the parallels of 7th century Roman Catholicism to the Babylonian worship of Nimrod.
The RCC has many true and outstanding doctrines, but most were developed prior to Gregory I. The more extrabiblical and half-pagan doctrines appear to have taken hold after Gregory.
NO need to argue...It wasn't the Catholic church...It didn't exist at that time...
So you are saying the first church was the Catholic church and nothing else existed until the time of the Reformation...
That's not an honest depiction of church history, so I can't pretend that it is...
I share your belief that the Bible is right and complete, inspired and protected by God; but it’s also immensely ambiguous and poetic. Americans and even modern Brits barely understand Shakespeare’s language, and they’re expected to understand the Bible’s? Call me naive or stupid, but I like to have experts help me through it, the Cliff Notes AND the footnotes, if you like. And that’s just ONE of the reasons for the at-least equal significance of the Church.
LoL...Yes, millions upon millions of people have/can and do understand the bible...The apostle Paul addresses your problem quite succinctly...
Unfortunately, John (and the other evangelists and epistle-writers) didn’t quite say (to paraphrase another John) “all you need is scripture.” What John said was, “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (20:31).
Fortunately, John also said
1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
He wrote 'em so we would know we have eternal life...That takes care of it...
If the Bible’s all that’s necessary, why baptize?
As a testimony that you have accepted what John had to say in the scriptures...
WHO baptizes, if not some representative of church?
Doesn't matter, anyone can baptize...The person baptizing has no power...It's the person being baptized that gets all the attention...
The Bible’s absolutely necessary, but it simply cannot be exclusively necessary, for salvation.
It can and it is...AND, it answers every question you posted, if one cares to look...
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.