Posted on 03/24/2008 3:36:37 PM PDT by annalex
This I gotta hear.
Well, not you, anyway.
I'll stick with the 2000 years of Christ's own Catholic Church.
I did, but it only takes one hole (verse 3) to sink the boat.
Do you not understand that is our central disagreement?
The point is that if scripture is correct, it must be authoritative. If it is not the sole authority, then other authorities must at minimum agree with scripture. Since scripture gives us a positive example of people testing apostles against scripture, then it would be false to say that no one but an apostle can interpret scripture or test an apostle against scripture. And if the apostle had disagreed with scripture, then the "apostle", and not scripture, would be thrown out.
How about this?
Hebrew & Greek -> Vulgate -> French -> English . . . and it STILL is plain as day.
Luther himself doubted the letter of James, -- understandably, since it contains a plain text refutation of his theological fantasies; the early Church fathers had doubts about the 2 Peter and the Apocalypse, as well as the Deuterocanon. The Catholics think that the complete canon is "fantastically intertwined". Surely what does and what doesn't intertwine is a matter of interpretaton, since, again, there is no list of inspired books anywhere.
Besides, what kind of logic is it? God gave us what He wanted to give us, not what we find in our small minds intertwining nicely. Note that the more you truncate the least scripture you have to harmonize; by that logic we'll be never done ignoring the Holy Scripture.
OK. Are we in agreement then that an external to the scripture objective authority of canonicity and interpretation exists?
BTW-The Catholic Haydock Commentary of 1856 agrees with my interpretation.
Obey the commandments, deny self, give what you have to the poor, take up your cross and follow Christ.
Why don't you worry about your own beliefs, such as they are, "doctor"?
This is that famous first usage:
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
In the same letter he also says "if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation." Obviously, that "universal group of believers" did not contain a single Protestant.
The passage in James 2 refers to Abraham's sacrifice; the passage in Romans 4 -- to his circumcision. If you exclude the role of good works, such as described in the Sermon on the Mount, your argument is with the scripture not me.
No argument here, with the single caveat that "agree" can be rather furry all on it's own.
Since scripture gives us a positive example of people testing apostles against scripture, then it would be false to say that no one but an apostle can interpret scripture or test an apostle against scripture.
That is similarly fuzzy in that the standards of that test are unknown except those in judgement reckoned the apostle to be in conformity to The Old Testament. The New Testament had yet to establish it's bona fides at the time.
As an aside, bear in mind there were plenty of Jews who would NOT agree the apostle was in conformity with the Scriptures, so the standard being used was by no means universal.
I am unaware of any contention that only an "apostle can interpret scripture or test an apostle against scripture" but similarly there is no Holy Writ saying just anyone can interpret Scripture or test apostles.
And if the apostle had disagreed with scripture, then the "apostle", and not scripture, would be thrown out.
Again, the Old Testament had been long established and needed no validation. The same can not be said for any letter floating around claiming to be from an apostle of the Lord.
Sts Matthew, John, Jude and Paul were apostles who consecrated bishops. St. Peter was apostle and bishop of Rome. St. James the Just was apostle and bishop of Jerusalem. Sts Luke and Mark were assitants to apostle Paul and apostle Peter.
Like what the Roman Catholic Church was before or after Vatican II? Before or after the Rosary, the tradition of confessions to a priest?
The Catholic Church is not a constant for the last 2,000 years, and didn't formally exist for 400 years after Jesus. The Messianic communities of the early Church were far more Jewish and far more decentralized than the Catholic Church you reference. Were they truly saved? I believe so. Did they believe and worship in a way at all similar to Catholics for the last 500 years? I don't think so.
Christianity is very simple and does not need the Catholic superstructure of outdated traditions rooted in dead cultures and forgotten heresies. Claims to exclusivity based on traditions not followed for hundreds of years after the resurrection of Jesus should be met with skepticism at the very least.
You have to ask yourself. If it wasn't necessary for salvation to the first Christians, why is it necessary now?
Of course I mean the Catholic Church in communion with Rome. Jesus did not start any "denominations"; He prayed that such horror should not happen.
I’m not going to quibble the four forms of causation with you. The boat that sunk is your assertion Korah wasn’t rebelling against Moses. If you choose to ignore the fact he manifestly WAS rebelling against God by rebelling against God’s appointed authority, there’s nothing I can do to force you to acknowledge it.
The question is, where is that scriptural authority in the scripture? My Church’s authority is in the scripture. So who is obeying whom here?
Really? Show me.
Who has claimed that?
...and didn't formally exist for 400 years after Jesus.
Define "formally exist." It was founded by Christ Himself.
Christianity is very simple and does not need the Catholic superstructure of outdated traditions rooted in dead cultures and forgotten heresies.
LOL By your calculus, you prefer the fresh traditions of dying cultures and newfangled heresies.
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.