Posted on 07/28/2008 4:07:43 AM PDT by Gamecock
Got a link to that?
post 128 by you
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Salvation from Christ through the RCC to His body, so If I am not in the Rcc I am not saved. Right that what it says and what you have said.
You really need to stop saying RCC. It’s confusing.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
+Irenaeus, Against Heresies (3,3,3)
The bolded text above is the definition of Sacred Tradition.
John MacArthur mused, How did this happen? The earliest Church Fathers placed a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture over verbal tradition. Fierce debates raged in the early church over such crucial matters as the deity of Christ, His two natures, the Trinity, and the doctrine of original sin. Early church councils settled those questions by appealing to Scripture as the highest of all authorities. The councils themselves did not merely issue ex cathedra decrees, but they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly. The authority was in the appeal to Scripture, not in the councils per se.
Viewing what +Irenaeus stated about the subject of disputes:
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
Ibid, 3,4,1
As long as we are on +Irenaeus, we can see how the Gospel accounts were formed:
1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
Ibid, 3,1,1
Heed the above carefully, it was written very, very early in the Church history...by one of the "Church Fathers" (I figure if John MacArthur can talk about Church Fathers, citing them as a rationale for "sola scriptura," I can cite them as well). Note it well: it says that +Matthew's account was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic), not Greek. +John didn't write his account until after he took up residence in Ephesus, some decades after the Lord's ascension. +Mark summarized +Peter's teachings in his account, while +Luke summarized +Paul's teachings. In other words, two of the gospels were written second hand: writing down oral teachings.
Interestingly enough, the very last sentence that +John wrote in his gospel account was, But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. So the apostle, himself, states that his gospel is not a complete account. In fact, +Paul commanded the Church in Thessalonica to stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. Curious how both +Paul and +John would make those statements, particularly if the particular Churches were to consider the written Scriptures only.
+Irenaeus made extensive reference to Sacred Tradition. He also made reference to the authority of the bishops to interpret the Scriptures. And so on. You could also refer to +Ignatius, Tertullian, +Clement of Alexandria, +Origen, +Basil, +John Chrysostom, etc. Did they laud Scripture? Of course. Did they diminish Sacred Tradition? Break out some citations, John (MacArthur). I sure don't see evidence of that anywhere (unless you start to cite Marcion, Arius, etc.)
As I quoted above, MacArthur stated, Fierce debates raged in the early church over such crucial matters as the deity of Christ, His two natures, the Trinity, and the doctrine of original sin. Early church councils settled those questions by appealing to Scripture as the highest of all authorities.
I find that interesting, but without support. Eusebius' account of the First Council of Nicea (AD 325), stated,
As soon as the emperor had spoken these words in the Latin tongue, which another interpreted, he gave permission to those who presided in the council to deliver their opinions. On this some began to accuse their neighbors, who defended themselves, and recriminated in their turn. In this manner numberless assertions were put forth by each party, and a violent controversy arose at the very commencement. Notwithstanding this, the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and received every proposition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the argument of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation. At the same time, by the affability of his address to all, and his use of the Greek language, with which he was not altogether unacquainted, he appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light, persuading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed question.
Note that there was no mention of what the content of their arguments were. Just that each one brought forward his discussion and that Constantine worked with them to arrive at a consensus.
Maybe MacArthur has a different account of the Council, but he didn't bother to cite his account, he just pushed out an assertion as if it were fact. Pity that most here bought it. He didn't specify which council he was talking about, so perhaps it was another one. Let's look.
How about the First Council of Constantinople:
Letter of the Synod to Theodosius:
- To the most religious Emperor Theodosius, the Holy Synod of Bishops assembled in Constantinople out of different Provinces.
We begin our letter to your Piety with thanks to God, who has established the empire of your Piety for the common peace of the Churches and for the support of the true Faith. And, after rendering due thanks unto God, as in duty bound we lay before your Piety the things which have been done in the Holy Synod. When, then, we had assembled in Constantinople, according to the letter of your Piety, we first of all renewed our unity of heart each with the other, and then we pronounced some concise definitions, ratifying the Faith of the Nicene Fathers, and anathematizing the heresies which have sprung up, contrary thereto. Besides these things, we also framed certain Canons for the better ordering of the Churches, all which we have subjoined to this our letter. Wherefore we beseech your Piety that the decree of the Synod may be ratified, to the end that, as you have honoured the Church by your letter of citation, so you should set your seal to the conclusion of what has been decreed. May the Lord establish your empire in peace and righteousness, and prolong it from generation to generation; and may he add unto your earthly power the fruition of theheavenly kingdom also. May God by the prayers (e??a?? t?? ?????) of the Saints, show favour to the world, that you may be strong and eminent in all good things as an Emperor most truly pious and beloved of God.Don't see that they cited that they used a Scriptural exegesis for their debate there. Well, maybe we can see it in the Canons.
- Canon 1
The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. And every heresy shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomæans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.They cited the authority of the previous council as their basis. Not Scripture (mind you, this does not mean that the Scriptures weren't used...but it was not the only example).
- Canon 2
The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.Now as a Catholic, I think that this is a really good thing (and, in fact, that Canon is still a basis for how the Church governs herself). And, oh, by the way, please note the bolded text.
- Canon 5
Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost. But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies— for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:— all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.Again, as a Catholic, this is a very worthwhile mention, as it describes the Rites of Baptism and Confirmation pretty well. Particularly for adults. Now, MacArthur referred to early Church councils as an authority for his beliefs...how many Protestant denominations do the above for their baptismal rites?
Another Early Council was the Council of Ephesus (AD 431). Remember, MacArthur said, The councils themselves did not merely issue ex cathedra decrees, but they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly.
Gamecock may have posted this for discussion; however, it appears that there may be some agreement between Gamecock and MacArthur.
John Leland said, Thanks. Good read indeed. It’s a keeper. (I assume that means that he agreed with the content, including the above statement)
Manfred the Wonder Dawg said, Most of MacArthur’s “smears” against the RCC could have come from a book written by an RC that was given to me: Karl Adams’ “The Roots of the Reformation”. A review is in the works. (It appears that Manfred agrees with MacArthur, in this case, as well)
Quix said, Looks like a good one. (Another person agreeing with MacArthur, I guess)
Griffin said, Very Good Gamecock. Very Good job! (More agreement with MacArthur?)
Let's see what the Council said (remember, they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly)
- And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.
Hmmm. Remember, according to MacArthur, they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly.
- Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (??a????) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (?eµ?????) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.
Hmmm. Remember, according to MacArthur, they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly.
Finally, let's look at one more early council, the Second Council of Nicea (AD 787). In reading this, remember that according to MacArthur, they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly:
Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
Please note what Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus used as their argument, the one anathematized:that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
Remember MacArthur's words: they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly.
Now, was MacArthur right or did he lie? If he was right, I will be more than happy to hear the apologies of any of you who are humble enough to admit the error in your ways. Otherwise, would any of you care to re-examine your opinion of his article?
Do I hear crickets in the background??
Please note, you can argue plus or minus tradition. But you all praised MacArthur's article, yet didn't even know what the heck it said (at least based on your praise). Why did you praise the article? Was it because it reaffirmed your earlier prejudices against the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? It surely wasn't because you did a critical reading and fact-checked the article. (EVERYBODY knows that Ephesus I was the Council where they canonized the dogma of Theotokos (Mary as the Ever Virgin Mother of God)! That one should be easy to recognize...but none of you twigged on it -- or maybe anti-Catholicism requires no factual basis, just vitriol.
Is that a question?
The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.
I do not understand the grammar.
INDEED!
Why do the Jewish People refer God as Hashem?/Just Asking - seoul62......
The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.
The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20, KJV).
INDEED!
You really need to stop saying RCC. It’s confusing.
I invoke the no gibberish rule.
Your snickering demon seems to laugh at all the most important facts.
How did you become his slave?
Soooooooooo
thoughtful and kind when a rabid RC rep notes when someone in the pack has cushioned a truth-arrow’s trajectory.
Thanks.
Still waiting for your reply to #153
no slavation Unum Sanctum with out the church.
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.