Posted on 06/01/2010 9:52:44 AM PDT by NYer
I believe everything the scriptures say...Word for word...
So when Timothy says we should pass on the traditions we have learned, you reject it?
Of course I believe what Timothy said about traditions...But I also know that the traditions were the actual scriptures before they were put to paper...
You see, you would have us believe that those traditions are still floating in thru your church...You have no traditions that Timothy passed on...There weren't any outside of the scriptures...
Naw, I see the Trinity all over the scriptures...I don't see a pope anywhere...
No, the real irony is that the statement comes from someone who belongs to a religion that has developed Marian devotion, Marian Mediatrix, Marian co-redeamer, Marian Queen of Heaven completely outside of the scriptures...
You have a vested interest in not accepting Sola Scripture...
Iscool:
Perhaps you have reading comprehension problems. I never said the theological basis for the Holy Trinity were not in Sacred Scripture. However, what I did state was the Formal definition of the Holy Trinity is not in Sacred Scripture as the understandig of the Godhead was one that was highly contested and debated starting in the 2nd century with the appearance of gnosticsim, the early 3rd century with the appearance of Modalism [Sabellianism], Adoptionism, and moving to the 4th century we get into Arianism, etc and thus all of these theological debates resulted in the Church reflecting on the Scriptures and Tradition [i..e How the Church prayed and the consensus of the Church Fathers] to hammer out what was orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine and what was not.
Again, the theological basis for the Holy Trinity is in the Scriptures as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all mentioned. What is not formally defined is the relatioshhip among the 3 Divine Persons of Trinity as that was formally defined at the Councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinopiile (381 AD).
Yes, there were traditions that weren’t recorded in scriptures. The trinity is just one of many.
And yes, many of those traditions are still found in the Catholic church. Some have changed over time, such as the use of the vernacular.
Exactly the opposite is true. Protestantism has a vested interest in establishing sola scriptura because it is the only way that it can control the dialog at the expense of the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura cannot be established based upon scripture.
When challenged Protestants make the argument that to suggest that scripture does not contain 100% of the revealed word of God is to challenge the credibility of scripture. The Catholic position is that scripture is 100% accurate, but not 100% complete.
Protestants claim that scripture is both 100% accurate and 100% complete, but require the belief in the extra-Scriptural Sola Scriptura argument to defend it. Dizzying to say the least.
What basis do you have for declaring, simplifying, or summarizing what the Catholic Church does or does not teach or what Catholics do or do not believe since you admittedly have never studied any of the Catechism? Back in the hood they would call what you are doing 'talking out of your you-know-what'....
Iscool:
No, I said the recapitulation theory was further developed by St. Ireneaus of Lyon (175 AD). As for Melchizedek being Christ before the Incarnation, that is utter nonsense as that would have made Christ’s incarnation happen in Genesis, which is theological heresy of the 1st order.
Melchizedek was a priest and priest offer sacrifice and the offering that Melchizedek made used “Bread and Wine” and thus Christ eternal priesthood is of the order of Melchizedek (cf Ps 110:4) as it points to how God gave us Bread to strengthen us and Wine to gladden to our hearts (cf Ps 104:14-15).
Indeed, throughout the OT you see Bread being an important sign as the Jewish people are liberated from Slavery in Egypt and journey to the Promise Land (cf Ex 12: 1-20 (passover), Exodous Chapter 16 [Manna is food for the journey as the Jewish people wonder for 40 years before entering the Promise Land, which prefitures the Eucharist as our spiritual food in this life on our journey to our heavenly homes, etc).
As for the forged Letters of St. Ignatius, every reputable Scholar, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican and Reformed Patristic Scholars in Europe [J.B. Lightfoot, Harnack and Zahn] agree that there are 7 authentic Ignatian epistles.
Now, the best evidence of that the 7 Ignatian epistles are authentic can be found in the CHurch History written by Eusebius in the early 4th century as he quotes from them and St. Jerome’s writings in the late 4th and early 5th, who also quotes extensively from them.
Again, the consensus of Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Patristic Scholars is that there are 7 extant Ignatian epistles which are the letters to the Church at Ephesus; Church of Magnesia; Church at Tralles; Church of Rome;
Church of Philadelphia; Church of Smyrna; and a Letter to St.Polycarp.
So does Scripture.
So does everyone else who's baptized. There's only one baptism. And there's only one Church.
In other words then, it's a wild guess...It's not an understanding, it's a decree...And it has no more meaning that what you or I may come up with to define and describe the Trinity...All that we know about the Trinity is in the scriptures, alone...
You need to get with CTrent1564 on that...
Christians don’t walk along side of Jesus...They walk in Him...You can’t get that concept until you ARE in Him...>>>>
The Eucharistic Doxology
Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honour is yours Almighty Father, forever and ever. Amen.
I read his post, he’s saying what I’m saying in a different way, that the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated by the church after the Gospels were written. All the ecumenical councils resolved issues and clarifications of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Iscool:
No, the Councils of the Church represent the CHurch speaking with authority under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and notice that Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinopile (381 AD) both occurred before the NT canon was totally defined at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397, respectively.
So I believe the Creeds, dogmatic doctrinal statements from those Councils, are authoritative otherwise we fall into Lone ranger Christianity, which is ultimately where you end up, i.e. that you are in essence your own Church Council and/or Pope. I believe what they believe and they professed back then what I believe now and those Same Church Fathers in the early Church are the same ones who decided the orthodox biblical canon versus the canons held by various heretical gnostic sects and the faith of the Fathers and their understanding of the scriptures reflects the theology of the CHurch that was used to define doctrines at these same Councils.
“Born and raised a Jew, Arkes said he views his newly-embraced Catholic faith as a fulfillment of his Jewish faith. Rather than a departure, he sees it as accepting Christ as Messiah.”
This sounds to me like he indeed accepted Yeshua as the Savior. The Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church, and I doubt that one can convert unless he or she accepts Christ as Savior, which is the key part of Christianity.
Also, Ben, I’m not a theologician, but I strongly doubt that Luther’s and Calvin’s stuff were “lies”, rather it was just their interpretations of Holy Scripture. Yes, they were fallible men, and yes they were certainly capable of making mistakes and getting things wrong-but then again the same could be said of Catholic theologicians. I fear your Protestant bashing won’t do the cause of Christian reunity any good and in fact may even turn off Protestants who are favorable towards better relations with their Catholic brethren.
I’m sure you guys think you’re being oh so cute with that graphic. However, Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that anyone can intrpret the Bible for themself. Rather, it means that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. It isn’t a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
Let’s leave out the theological debates.
A distinction without a difference.
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.