The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 162

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Threads 1-50

Threads 51-100

Threads 101-150

Thread 151	Thread 152	Thread 153	Thread 154	Thread 155	Thread 156	Thread 157
Thread 158<;/a>	Thread 159	Thread 160

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 161

[OLD REGGIE]

You were the one who cited Augustine as an authority to prove sola scriptura. I cited Augustine to show that

(1)Peter and his successors were recognized as having authority to settle disputes in the Church, to include disputes over scriptural interpretation and

(2) The Church also relied on unwritten tradition.
------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, I believe the writings of St Augustine I chose are unequivocal in affirming his beliefs in the concept of Sola Scripture. That had nothing to do with the authority of the Church to settle disputes. I fail to see your point.

-------------------on the other hand----------------------

"(2) The Church also relied on unwritten tradition."

This statement is the key. The Church can invent anything to support it's purposes and call it "unwritten tradition".

[dignan3]

Indeed. dignan3, I think it goes without saying that Catholics don't regard the Reformation as a good development, or as a reforming of anything.

Indeed. For me, the only good thing to come out of that era was the Council of Trent and subsequently, the quite needed reforms the Church imposed on Herself, and the Jesuits(that one is for Havoc).

I'm kidding when it comes to the last one :)

Pray for John Paul II

[Iowegian]

Acts chapter 16
26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed. 27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

The context shows that:
a) it was faith (trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ that saved them.

b) The baptism came after conversion of all members of the family and was a witness to their faith.

c) There is no indication that any of the members of his family were infants. In fact, it says they all believed, so they couldn't have been infants.

[Iowegian]

How could Jesus be married to His mother?

He wasn't married to her, that is exactly what makes the statement an absurd stretch of believablity. Adam and Eve were husband and wife, not mother and son. It just show that there are no boundaries to RC's attempts to give Mary titles and power she does not have (and would probably be embarassed, if not offended, to here).

[SoothingDave]

Of course, I believe the writings of St Augustine I chose are unequivocal in affirming his beliefs in the concept of Sola Scripture. That had nothing to do with the authority of the Church to settle disputes. I fail to see your point.

What do you think that we who don't believe in Sola Scriptura do believe in? That is, what is the essential opposite of your position in this debate?

Why, the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture properly.

To say that the authority of the Church has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura is to miss the entire point. Sola Scriptra is the rejection of the Church's authority.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

The Church from Apostolic times has baptized infants on the say-so of their parents

Chapter and verse please.

St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition, ca. 215 A.D. Baptize first the children; and, if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.

Origen, Commentaries on Leviticus, A.D. 244. Baptism is given even to infants.

Commentaries on Romans, A.D. 244. The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I must admit, as soon as I read this, I thought those Apostles must have been OLD!!!. I see others have picked up on this so I will let it slide.

I know the average RC doesn't rely greatly on Scripture, but you could have found a possible defense of infant baptism in Scripture.

____________________________________________________________

Acts 16:15 Acts 16 Acts 16:14-16 And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 18:8 Acts 18 Acts 18:7-9 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:16 1 Corinthians 1 1 Corinthians 1:15-17 (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
------------------------------------------------------------

This would serve two purposes: You could evidence a familiarity with Scripture, and you could claim that "households" could have included infants.

This is, after all, much stronger scriptural support than that claimed to show Peter was The Rock upon which Jesus built His Church.

[Iowegian]

One more thing, the additional absurdity here is that Paul never even mentions a "new Eve", so it is all an absurd stretch (trying to read between the lines again?). Just go with what is in Scripture, don't add your own "Scripture".

[SoothingDave]

How could Jesus be married to His mother?

He wasn't married to her, that is exactly what makes the statement an absurd stretch of believablity. Adam and Eve were husband and wife, not mother and son. It just show that there are no boundaries to RC's attempts to give Mary titles and power she does not have (and would probably be embarassed, if not offended, to here).

Exactly. Preposterous! Absurd!

(Unless it means something else.....)

SD

[Iowegian]

Why, the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture properly.

One of the biggest problems is right here in your reply. You capitalize "church" and I am assuming that you mean the RCC when you do that. Hence, you mean that only the RCC has the authority to interpret scripture. Now, what if the church (which means "all who trust in Christ") have the authority to interpret Scripture properly? Your statement would be correct and not violate the concept of sola Scriptura at all.

[malakhi]

(2nd request) Given the navigation features of the new forum software, it doesn't seem that it will be necessary to start new threads at the rate we have been accustomed to (150-200 replies). I'd like some input on how big I should let each thread get before I post a new one. 300? 400? 500? Please give me your feedback.

[SoothingDave]

Why don't you ask John Rob? There has to be some practical limit to how many he can hold?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

It is not just a question of having someone laying hands on one to ordain him. The man doing so must have the authority to do so. This authority only comes from a direct succession. The Orthodox have maintained this succession and their bishops and priests are validly ordained. The Anglicans used to have a claim to maintaining Apostolic succession. In some cases their priests are valid, but it is largely not so anymore. They've ordained women and practicing homosexuals. It can not be said that any given Anglican priest is valid.
------------------------------------------------------------

I take this a a slight modification of your initial statement which, to me at least, implied valid Apostolic Succession only to the RCC.

Please elaborate on this statement:

They've ordained women and practicing homosexuals.

1. Are you aware of scriptural prohibitions toward women and/or practicing homosexuals in the clergy?

2. If a practicing homosexual was validly ordained and, over the course of time, ordained others, who also ordained others; would any or the ordinations be valid.

[Iowegian]

Thanks for the subtle message. LOL. Maybe we should ask the webmaster if he has a preference first.

[Iowegian]

I've seen a lot of mindless threads that I would call "prattle". This is not one of them (most of the time).

[SoothingDave]

Why, the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture properly.

One of the biggest problems is right here in your reply. You capitalize "church" and I am assuming that you mean the RCC when you do that.

Yes, that is my common usage. If I mean "all Christians" I'll say something akin to that.

Hence, you mean that only the RCC has the authority to interpret scripture.

Interpret properly, yes. Christ established a teaching Church, one to go out to the nations and tell them the good news. This one Church, by necessity, would have one message and to ensure the truthfullness of the message, the Holy Spirit guides the Church infallibly.

Now, what if the church (which means "all who trust in Christ") have the authority to interpret Scripture properly?

Why don't they then? Seriously. If all who trust in Christ are authorized to properly interpret Scripture, why on earth do you all have different ideas about what Scripture means?

That's chaos. That's confusion. I thank God He left us with teachers to look to for help.

Your statement would be correct and not violate the concept of sola Scriptura at all.

If every believer truly could properly interpret Scripture then Sola Scriptura would be a wonderful thing. Until that day, we must reject it as a dangerous doctrine.

SD