Posted on 02/08/2011 11:08:38 AM PST by Gamecock
The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.
Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.
Consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature (as being inspired by God) the ultimate authority for the Church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.
The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.
This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent. It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism today. Some agree with Trent and some do not.
The view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the Early Church. The Early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.
The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.
Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.
In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows:
"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." [1]
Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a Tradition on issues of doctrine that are not found in Scripture.
Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:
"For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is." [2]The Bible was the ultimate authority for the Church of the Early Church . It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out:
"The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis". [3]Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church:
"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition". [4]
The fact that the early Church was faithful to the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century). He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.
He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This fact confirms that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of Scripture from these lectures.
"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." [5]
"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". [6]
Notice in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions, which they are now receiving. From what source is this tradition derived? Obviously it is derived from the Scriptures, the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone.
It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.
Gregory of Nyssa also enunciated this principle. He stated:
"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [7]
These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations. By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.
It is true that the Early Church also held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church.
An example of this is found early on in the 2nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition.
Which one is correct? There is no way to determine which, if either, was truly of Apostolic origin. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a certain Church Father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the Apostles.
There are numerous practices in which the Early Church engaged which it believed were of Apostolic origin (listed by Basil the Great), but which no one practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle".
Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring.
Sungenis edited a work recently on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. His book is 627 pages in length. Not once in the entire book does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men! Yet, we are told that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound, therefore, to submit to this church which alone possesses the fullness of God's revelation from the Apostles.
What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed “apostolic Tradition”. The simple reason that they do not do so is because it does not exist. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?
We defy anyone to list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians. The only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the Apostles is the written Scriptures.
This was the belief and practice of the early Church
. This principle was adhered to by the Reformers. They sought to restore it to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition.
The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as Tradition that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian Church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of Apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.
Just as the Early Church Fathers repudiated that teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we.
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27.
What does the Bible teach about sola Scriptura (final authority of Scripture)? Answer
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414. [up]
Catholics believe Jesus established a Church and the Holy Spirit works within that Church, not in opposition to it.
We also realize the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.
It really amazes the number of people who will apply Scripture willy nilly tossing around new meanings and applications like cheap party favors. When people are so proud of being able to snap a verse out whenever asked a question but not at all worried about whether the verse applies, that doesn't impress me as a respect for the Word. It's just what you said, sinful pride in having a snappy answer whether or not it's the right one.
Better yet , read post 100 many times and you will eventually understand it.
No wonder Jesus suffered terribly in the Garden, thinking of these sola scriptura types and their pride.
Even the kook that wrote it doesn’t believe it.
>> “It really amazes the number of people who will apply Scripture willy nilly tossing around new meanings” <<
.
Its unfortunate that people such as yourself that haven’t read the scriptures don’t understand that the word of God is a plain text, self explanitory treatise on life, and all that is needed is to read it aloud: “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.”
You deny yourself the truth, and the sweet peace of assurance that is transmitted thereby. You allow yourself to believe that it really means something other than what it plainly says, and that is the saddest thing in the world.
.
Uh... no. That's a horrendous leap from my pointing out there is more to know than what was written to you saying the Church bases its Faith on anything but Christ (written and in the flesh). Sorry, no sale.
Most aspects of the Church come from Scripture or can be found in Scripture (albeit sometimes obliquely). Other aspects were given us by Christ as a Deposit of Faith directly to the Apostles or passed from the Apostles as their own observation or understanding of an issue.
I'll explain our view of the doctrines you cited...
Immaculate Conception: True, there are no explicit Scriptures and proof-texts to give you. However, there are allusions in Scripture, starting in Genesis with the Proto-Evangelium. Part of the promise of salvation was that there would be enmity between the woman (Mary) and Satan and her Seed (Christ) would crush the serpent's head while he struck at His Heel. There is an equality of enmity that can suggest there is no time that the enmity will not exist, and therefore no time that She is not in a state of Grace in opposition to the serpent.
This can be carried forward to the greeting by the Angel (Luke 1:28). He greets Her as "full of grace"... not "anticipating grace"... not "future grace"... already full of God's grace.
Another argument is God's simple command to Honor Your Father and Your Mother. Mary is Christ's Mother and as He honors Her, we follow His example.
Another way to see it is that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Just as the old Ark carried the tablets of the Law, the manna from Heaven and the rod of Aaron so She carried the Word made Flesh, the Bread come down from Heaven, and the High Priest/King in the order of Melchisadech. The Ark was a thing pure, holy and undefiled in both instances. In the case of Mary, that included the stain of original sin. The Glory of the Lord came upon both Arks in the same way in the same Biblical wording.
The Assumption: You're right... no Scripture on this one. However, is this that great a stumbling block? Even before our redemption through Christ, we find that Enoch did not die but was taken by God to Heaven (Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5). Christ rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven. Mary's tomb was opened and found to be empty. The Assumption was the conclusion of the early Church through many writings and sermons. Again, Christ was the living Law... and He honored His Mother.
Peter as the First Pope: Scriptural verses and explanations already given throughout this and other threads. We may disagree on the interpretation of these Scripture verses... but then, that's why the Church has teaching authority. Personal interpretation gives us disunity and division.
The Popes: Look at it this way... look at what the Protestant churches did once they threw off the Pope... they made their own popes. Whether it's the Archbishop of Canterbury, Martin Luther, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen or any one of a million pastors... men are constantly being elevated as teachers to explain and interpret Scripture. God knew we needed that so He gave us the Church with a Pope to hold the doctrines firm.
I'll give you all of the Epistles as Scriptural proof of the popes. Unless there were disagreements and errors in the Church, there was no reason to write the Epistles. They were written from the authority given the Church to hold the doctrines firm. I will now point (for the third time on this thread) back to Isaiah 22:22 to show that among the ministers in the House of David, one was chosen as Prime Minister and given the Keys of the Kingdom. So, the Church wrote letters (Epistles) to the churches for reproof and correction from its teaching authority... the Apostles were the primary teachers of the Apostolic age and ministers to Christ's Earthly Kingdom... there is a Prime Minister among the ministers of Christ's Kingdom... I give you the Pope.
Mary, Queen of the Universe: Her Son is the Divine Son of David Who will Rule for all eternity. Read your Scripture... starting with Solomon, the mother of the king is seated at the king's right hand in the Davidic custom. It isn't a great leap of faith that Christ so honored His Mother in His Divine Davidic Kingdom. For if it isn't David's Kingdom He leads and rules, God's Covenant to David was not fulfilled.
Purgatory: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 shows that there was a Jewish tradition. In Matt 12:32, Our Lord says, "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." The implication here is that there are sins in the world to come which will be forgiven. Since no one may enter into Heaven in sin, there must be a time of forgiveness prior to entry to Heaven for these souls. 1 Cor 3:11-15 gives an oblique reference to the fire that will try all men's works in the life to come that he might be saved.
Eucharist (Implicit?! You've got to be kidding...): This one has always baffled me as being a source of controversy among Christians. Between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, there are many differences... one thing that is given prominence, though, is Christ telling His followers to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood--even to the point of losing followers. It's that important. Protestants take this as metaphor, and Catholics take His Words at face value on Faith. Heck, even St Paul--who missed out on the actual events of the Last Supper--was commanded by Christ to bring the Mass to the gentiles (1 Cor 11:23-34). Here is an article with many Biblical citations for the Eucharist.
I know from many years on FR that I have probably wasted my time laying this out for you... but it seemed important at the time. If you truly want to learn and not just 'yip' like a little dog, there is much to read. Rather than attacking the Church for what you think it is, read the Catechism and discover your Mother.
Note: Even Martin Luther had no problems with the above doctrines and said so.
Also, remember that the Epistles were written not as a Catechism for the early Church with every doctrine of faith. Rather, they were written to bring back into conformity what had lapsed in the churches. From that understanding... the lack of many of these things above take on a greater significance--because they weren't a source of controversy in the early Church. Indeed you can find early Church writings and sermons on all of the topics.
God bless you.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
In other places in scripture Jesus is referred to as the “corner stone”, but the rock that the church is build on is the Father.
If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.
Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
There are a number of problems with this... and it all goes back to the problem of the article in question... Sola Scriptura. Your interpretation is entirely at odds with everyone else's who has challenged me on this thread... and, frankly, at odds with about every theologian I can think of--Catholic or Protestant.
The first reference to "rock" is the first time Christ has called him "Peter" or "rock". Christ isn't simply acknowledging him (Like... Hey, Joe!), He is calling Peter to a higher purpose.
The second reference to "rock" isn't referencing our Heavenly Father. You could make the case that it's referencing Christ Himself... but that isn't supported by the context either. Most who oppose the Catholic view see it as strictly Peter's confession of faith and Peter receives no higher calling here.
Here's the problem with the Protestant interpretation... Jesus spoke Aramaic with His Apostles, not Greek. In the Aramaic, "rock" is kipha and there is no other word for it. So, the original text actually calls Peter "kipha" and Christ follows it that upon this "kipha" He will build His Church.
He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
There are a number of problems with this... and it all goes back to the problem of the article in question... Sola Scriptura. Your interpretation is entirely at odds with everyone else's who has challenged me on this thread... and, frankly, at odds with about every theologian I can think of--Catholic or Protestant.
The first reference to "rock" is the first time Christ has called him "Peter" or "rock". Christ isn't simply acknowledging him (Like... Hey, Joe!), He is calling Peter to a higher purpose.
The second reference to "rock" isn't referencing our Heavenly Father. You could make the case that it's referencing Christ Himself... but that isn't supported by the context either. Most who oppose the Catholic view see it as strictly Peter's confession of faith and Peter receives no higher calling here.
Here's the problem with the Protestant interpretation... Jesus spoke Aramaic with His Apostles, not Greek. In the Aramaic, "rock" is kipha and there is no other word for it. So, the original text actually calls Peter "kipha" and Christ follows it that upon this "kipha" He will build His Church. The Catholic view is that the "rock" is both Peter in the physical sense and his confession in the metaphysical sense.
Sorry for the double post. I thought I stopped it in time and added a little on the second one...
Virtually the whole of old Rome, that would be modern Europe, is “pagan” once again. If Christ’ Church converted something like 25% of the Empire by say, AD 180—as several reputable historians estimate—why is it that something like 80% or more of modern Europeans identify themselves as non-religious, agnostic or atheist?
If the Roman Catholic Church is so terrific, why is it so incredibly ineffective on its home turf? I wonder what percentage of the city of Rome today are practicing Roman Catholics? I bet it was higher in the 2nd Century...
There are a couple of replies that should suffice. The first is that Revelation tells us that the Church will be under significant strain in the last days. Just as Israel was raised to martyrdom (as shown in Daniel and Maccabees) and Christ was raised to die on the Cross, so too will the Church suffer for the Glory of God.
The second reply can be found in Post 86.
it is my personal belief that we are indeed in the end times, because we are witnessing the great falling away from the Church as Paul explained in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 “let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed”
the falling away from the Catholic Church in the last 40 years is stunning, like nothing that has been experienced in 2,000 years.
when Jesus returns, will He find faith on the earth?
the two witnesses of Revelation, which is the Church, if they are not dead, they are close. i see a lot of rejoicing that the two witnesses are dead.
so yes, you are quite correct that the Church is falling apart, but there will be a remnant of believers looking up to the clouds for the return of Jesus to receive His Bride.
Been there done that. Neither interpretation is correct as neither interpretation fits with the rest of scripture. The whole male, female argument doesn’t hold water. Throughout scripture it is made clear that the Rock is God (Jesus is God) and that one verse doesn’t deter from that. The verse that is used to establish Peter as the rock that the church is built on has no other support in scripture but Jesus being the Rock does. To replace Jesus as the Rock with Peter is totally against scripture.
It's honestly upsetting that when anyone has serious questions they won't get any serious answers from the Sola crowd and definitely no requests to expand on the thinking behind the questions. They will get what boils down to a half dozen pat answers, frequently supported by Scripture taken out of context or otherwise interpreted to mean anything but, “ ... what it plainly says”.
Perhaps, "Moses lit off on a camel" means he lit his cigarette since that's what it plainly says. A verse about smoking is needed so a verse about cigarettes is found and applied. Fundamentalists smoke only Camel brand, moderates any type of non-filter, and liberals say the verse implies any sort of cigarette is just fine. Of course the plain reading of what it plainly says is clearly applied in an absurd manner. Yet that, I have now learned, is the very essence of Sola Scriputa.
It is far sadder to see someone floating along in their “sweet peace of assurance” than anything else I can think of be cause such a state is about as far from fear and trembling as I can imagine. Over the past few months I have finally realized the sort of people who fit a particular situation in the Word that I have sometimes wondered about. Those who believe they are right and are so tranquil and self-assured about their faith that it induces in them no fear are the very ones who will be shocked at the response when they say, "Lord, Lord" and are told, "I never knew you".
Regards
Again. It begs the question: Which Scriptures? In the time of Christ there was no fixed Canon. Nor was there a fixed canon of Christian Scripture for generations after the Apostles. It also begs the question: who is to decide when the meaning of Scripture is unclear. No one doubts the primacy of the Bible, nor its inspiration. But the Apostles themselves had in their own hands only the Jewish texts, and the personal witness of the Apostles was the main means by which the Gospel was spread. Those Scriptures that were of burning importance were those that dwelt most specifically with the Gospel. The New Testament is more than anything else, or ONLY a commentary on those passages that relate to the life and mission of Our Lord. But we have no evidence whatsoever that either the Jewish Scriptures or the New Testament Scriptures were widely distributed over the Christian Church. Indeed, there seems not to have been in the West anything like the sort of commentary or Tradition that was the basis of the Talmud. The Christian Scriptures were in fact an alternative for the Rabbinical commentaries that eventually become the Talmud. Paul found hostility against his preaching wherever he went , but he still won many converts among western Jews.
Where do you get this? The Church is two witnesses? That's the first I've heard of that interpretation. I guess you could say Israel and the Church (Revelation does say they return from the dead... the new Israel?).
Normally, I've heard reference to the Law and the Prophets (or Moses and Elijah by name)... but that is usually taking a Revelation-fulfilled-by-Destruction of Jerusalem-approach. The Law lives again in Christ (fulfilled) and the Prophets are the Apostles and their successors. It's interesting to contemplate but we will know for sure in the occurrence.
As to the health of the Church... it is weakening in western culture, no doubt... but it is strengthening in Asia and Africa. What we need are bishops who will stand up for the Church with no hesitation or calculation. I think it was Archbishop Fulton Sheen who said that the call to be a bishop is a call to martyrdom... not many in the western world seem ready for sacrifice any more...
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.