Fail.
Jesus completed the priesthood, and conferred the honor on each and every believer.
Today is a good day to die.
I didn't say for whom.
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]
Unless you understand that Christ is conferring a special office of authority on Peter as His Vicar physically present in the world...
Fail.
Jesus completed the priesthood, and conferred the honor on each and every believer.
read the attributes of the two witnesses, it can only apply to the Church.
And yet no one agrees...
Deuteronomy 7:6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
>> Come to think of it, very few people on this earth belief that Israel has a "right" to the land.<<
Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
1 Chronicles 16:14-18 "He is The Lord our God; His judgments are in all the earth. He is mindful of His covenant for ever, of the word that He commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant which He made with Abraham, His sworn promise to Isaac, which He confirmed as a statute to Jacob, as an everlasting covenant to Israel, saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan, as your portion for an inheritance."
Rom 11:25 "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."
Ezek 39:28 "Then they will know that I am the LORD their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind."
Even when the Israelites disobeyed God (as they very often did), and He punished them for it by sometimes sending them into exile, they always came back, according to God's Will, whether it was in the ancient time of the return from the Babylonian exile, or the establishment of the modern-day state of Israel (primarily by the people of Judah, one of the twelve tribes) in 1948 or the yet future greater return. And, every time, the same warning applied, and applies - God commanded the Israelites to take what was theirs, the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (not the land of "Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael”), all of it (no "West Banks" or "East Jerusalems" etc.), without compromise, or suffer terrorist attacks and political mayhem within their own God-commanded borders from people who had no God-given lawful right to be there.
For a moment, let’s just say that Herod was the figurehead of all the peoples of Judea (many ‘denominations’), and Pilate represented the authority of Rome (the Catholics), so maybe I can help ‘Herod’ and ‘Pilate’ become friends because of Zuriel.
**We also realize the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.**
A brief example of the confusion trinitarian ‘creeds’ display is shown in the following numbered lines from a posting of the so-called ‘Athanasian Creed’:
**10. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Spirit eternal.
22. The Son is of the Father alone: not made; nor created; but begotten.**
Eternal=begotten??
The following statement is contradictory to the verse which follows it.
**25. And in this Trinity none is before or after another: none is greater or less than another.**
“..I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” John 14:28
And this:
**12. As also there are not three uncreated: nor three immeasurable: but one uncreated, and one immeasurable.**
??
So there are TWO that ARE created, and TWO that ARE measurable??
More confusion:
**13. So likewise the Father is almighty: the Son almighty: and the Holy Spirit almighty.**
If one is almighty, there is no need for the others. If one needs the others, that one is not almighty.
And these next ones........?????????????
17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.
18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.
?????????
Tell me, now who is it that is the author of confusion?
The religious majority, during Jesus Christ first coming, controlled the temple, synagogues, and what was taught.
And they were dead wrong when it came to knowing who he was.
Some questions for any who choose to answer them:
1. How does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this: “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the ‘2nd and 3rd persons of God’ don’t know??)?
2. What divine powerful attribute did the Son give to the Father, if any?
3. If the Holy Ghost is a ‘separate and distinct person of God’, what divine powerful attribute can it give to the Father that the Father doesn’t already have?
4. Did the Son of God inherit his name ‘Jesus’?
5. Why is the phrase ‘Son of God’ found many times in scripture, but the phrase ‘God the Son’ is found nowhere in scripture?
6. Acts 2:38. Is it from heaven or of men?
My explaination of the Godhead:
God the Father made the body and soul of Jesus Christ and dwells in him, which is why Christ is the fulness of the Godhead bodily; the infinite God (Spirit) placing all power in him. It’s the ‘fusing’ of God’s Spirit with the mind of an obedient soul, that is given forth as the Holy Ghost. That’s why Christ is the true God and eternal life, fulfilling Isaiah 9:6, where he is called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace”.
You clearly haven’t read the article—and won’t even try to dispute it, because in deriding sola scriptura types, you deride most of the most important Church Fathers—and the first 500 years of the Church.
Jesus’ bride is obedient to His Word, not obedient to His Word, PLUS some other unsubstantiated rumors of His word....
A little different way of defining what is called revelation, the basis for which The God(head) imparts the knowledge of His Will to mankind. “Sola Scriptura” is only in the sphere of Special Revelation and Inspiration:
A. Revelation is the way The God divulges truth to a man:
1) Natural or General Revelation (Rom. 1:18-20, Ps. 19:1-3)
a) This is not a personal communication mode (Lk. 4:4)
b) Natural revelation is not spiritual (1 Cor. 2:14-15)
2) Supernatural or Special Revelation (too many refs to recount here)
a) Body of records available to Moses for Genesis
b) Dreams, sleeping & wakeful visions
c) Extraordinary appearances
d) Mouth to mouth
e) Through His Son, The Living Word
B. Inspiration is the act of God, controlling by means of His Holy Spirit, the initial written recording of The God’s Word without error, so that it was perfect, (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:20,21), even in the smallest consonant (yodh) or vowel pointing (keraia) (Matt. 5:18, Lk. 16:17).
1) Writing is the tangible and complete method by which His Will is given precisely (Ex. 31:18, Matt. 4:4)
2) It was revealed progressively over time. (Eph. 3:3-9)
3) It is not intended to be exhaustive on all subjects. (John 29:30, 21:25)
C. Canonicity is the list of books recognized by the church as inspired of The God to complete the Bible.
1) The writing of the Bible was concluded (as of ~100 AD)in the fulness of time (Gal. 4:4-6)
2) It is comprehensive as to salvation (1 Pet. 1:23, ), separation (2 Cor. 6:14-18), and sanctification (1 Pet 1:15-16, 2 Cor. 7:1).
3) It is closed to any further inclusion through man (Rev. 22:18-19).
D. Preaching is _not_ revelation. It is to proclaim, as a herald, something already known; to dispel ignorance of the fact that The God is willing to reconcile the hearer to Him through Jesus’ obedience to The God’s Will (Heb. 10:9-10), according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
E. Teaching is _not_ revelation. It is explaining that which is known — what (a) Scripture means and/or how it is to be applied, keeping it watchfully secure against mistranslation or misinterpretation (Matt. 28:20a)
The feature of “Sola Scriptura” doctrine is that the only valid tradition authorized by Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15 and 2 Pet. 3:16 as comp. Matt. 115:3,6 and Gal. 1:14)is that of using the Holy Scriptures to explain and apply it, using itself alone as the standard and authority, as did the original Apostles, and Paul (1 Cor. 15:8).
You might note that John Wesley’s Methodism was based on the Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience) — flying in the face of Sola Scriptura (as does today’s Romanism); for which Wesley was chastened by his contemporary, George Whitfield AFAIK.
With regards —
i need to get to bed, i will answer tomorrow.
but, let me ask you, when Jesus was baptized by John, who’s voice was it that was heard saying “this is my son.....”
was Jesus throwing His voice like a ventriliquist?
For example, I already dealt with the opening sentence... So let's take the first assertion... that the Council of Trent declared the Bible insufficient. No it did not. The words of Trent are paraphrased but the "not materially sufficient" part is editorial conclusion.
Fraud.
That formulation does not address the matter of who among us is best fit to perform the missions assigned by the Spirit, and how error is to be avoided. You posit a kind of anarchy. In a way you are proposing the same kind of existence led by the Desert Fathers of Egypt and Syria, who withdrew from the cities in order to live holy lives. But the Acts show the Church as a Community, and within that community lines of authority and the rudiments of a liturgy, one founded on the worship of Jesus as Lord. No doubt that power was not confined to the Twelves and the large but unknown number.Paul speaks of 500 who can attest to the Resurrection. Yet there is a gravitational pull to congregation. These are after all Jews, and so they come together quite naturally in Christian synagogues, and do given honor still to the Temple, which however has acquired an entirely new meaning.
If you need specifics I suggest you read posts #6 , 8, 10, and 16 which decimate the fiction contained in the article and which your type has yet to adequately refute. If you have the courage you can read past post #16 to see further carnage of the insanity of sola scriptura.
It appears your ilk has been schooled in this vein for years yet you persist in your pride much like Satan. It may well be time for your type to take the words of John the Baptist to heart and "Repent"
And yet St Paul referenced noncanonical letters of his twice (1 Cor 5:9-11; Col 4:16) in Sacred Scripture text. In 1 Thess 3:10, St Paul implies that his letter isn't enough and that only in person could he supply what is lacking in their faith. 2 Peter 3:16 suggests that the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their own destruction. In Acts 17:28, St Paul quotes the writings of pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus... appealing to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.
Sola Scriptura is wrong on so many levels (not the least of examples is this thread and its multiple understandings of "simple" Scripture text) and your proof above is bogus given the citations given that are outside of your assertion. Here is a great list of reasons why Sola Scriptura is unbiblical... I don't feel like copying them all and there's no reason to paste them here beyond a simple link.
Absolutely great post.
Good call. Thanks!
“[Love] is not rude.” (1 Cor. 13:5)
Thank you very much. Time for me to hit the hay. Good night!
Oh, and thank you again for your ministry of the daily readings, et al. They are a great help to me (and I know I am not alone).
Good...NOW, show us the traditions that were passed down from the Apostles...
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.