Back trying to start a fight again eh
Great post, A lot to read but will do!
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Yep, there’s variety, but most of it is in regard to the peripherals.
You think a monolith in teaching is good? See how much trouble Rome has brought us with that thinking.
Now, carrying the biological metaphor one step further, epigenetics tells us we can take that set of genes and short circuit some, duplicate others, delete yet others and lo and behold we end up with entirely new functions and processes that still contribute mightily to the existence and success of the organism.
Alas, it's relatively new science ~ maybe 5 years old ~ maybe less ~ but it knocks the stuffings out of all the DNA metaphors!
God in His infinite wisdom knows what He's doing!
tl;dr but I’ll respond to the criticisms - since there are criticisms.
Southern Baptists (not to be confused with the SBC) keep it simple. Book says don’t add... we didn’t add. Book says don’t take away... we didn’t take away.
That ^ answers every criticism you can throw at Baptists and most protestants in general while simultaneously containing a criticism of nearly every aspect of Catholicism.
Have a nice day.
The core of the argument doesn’t run to sola scriptura but rather to the split between liberalism and evangelicals— which is something different. But but the author can’t seem to get himself to say that the core of the problem created by liberalism’s higher criticism is that liberalism —in effect — embraced the arian heresy. that is a low view of christ. that is, that Jesus is just a man.
higher criticism took over the divinity schools in europe in the 1850’s at about the same time that atheism took over the philosphy departments there. The higher criticism school made the jump back over the atlantic about the end of the 19th century to american liberal divinity schools and by 1940’s had taken over all the liberal protestant divinity schools.
The premises of the higher criticism school is not sola scriptura but rather a notion passed from the greek tradition by descartes that man is the measure of all things—including God. You can see it in his tree of knowledge that starts with (greek)metaphisics as the root, with philosophy as the trunk and religion/witchcraft in the branches. The higher criticism school treated the bible as a myth like greek or norse myths. (The problem here is that theology is on a whole different root and tree than philosphy. Why? Because theology begins with the premise that God is the measure of all things. And two, God is outside of Man and outside of nature.)
If the problem were with sola scriptura then the problems posed by the Greek philosophy would be limited to the liberal protestant churches where membership is naturally on the fast track to extinction. (Why? Because you have a freaking creepy human sacrifice as the main mystery at the alter.)
Again, the author conflates two different points. One is differences in interpretations of the bible and the other is collapsing membership. The two are not related. If collapsing membership was caused by sola scriptura then the problems posed by the Greek philosophy —that is the collapse of their membership—would be limited to the liberal protestant churches—. However, its not. The catholic church membership as well in steep decline —especially in south america and Europe.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,805075,00.html
And much of the reason for this can be laid at the feet of the arian heresy. More than one pope in recent decades has railed against the arian heresy which is passed through liberal catholic seminaries and bishops.
fwiw the USA & latin american evangelical and charismatic churchs are all increasing their membership. there are different interpretations of the bible for example differences between arminians and calvinists. but they are all considered to be within the pale of orthodoxy as are the catholic church and the eastern orthodox church.
however, the arian churches are not within the pale of orthodoxy. this stuff can get really grievous too. three or four generations after the liberal protestant churches embraced higher criticism and the low view of christ—their denominations embraced homosexuality in the priesthood. Among catholics, you can bet that seminaries where the young novices were hit on — also took soto voce the low view of christ.
The art and science of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures and of inquiring into their true meaning. It defines the laws that exegetes are to follow in order to determine and explain the sense of the revealed word of God. It presupposes that the interpreter has a knowledge of the biblical languages and of such sciences as contribute to a better understanding of Holy Writ. (Etym. Greek herm_neus, interpreter.)
Let me guess, The Scriptures alone are not sufficient cause God couldn’t get them right, and we need Special leaders to fill in the blanks.
It’s a long post.
What about Satan’s influence, or did I miss that?
Dude...you need to learn how to do a hypertext link!
This constant fighting against sola scriptura seems a head feint to allow Rome and others to replace it's decided upon traditions, for principles that some of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene & Post fathers did not mention, or support, and at times can be reasonably interpreted to have rejected. The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (if it can be trusted) doesn't much support some of the later inventions, either, though I do recall that being brought here recently by yourself.
[don't get me wrong...I'm not saying all "tradition" should be ignored, not at all, but perhaps that some parts are not beyond needful challenge of attention]
There surely wasn't [the previously acknowledged to be needful, see Vincent of Lerins] unanimity concerning a few points, including that "tradition" could change what can be reasonably seen to have been previously held scriptural understanding, changing clear meanings with later arrived at, but grown over many centuries, dogmas.
Many quotes can be found which are quite explicit for that cause. Other quotes, (some of which have been misused to the extent to support opposite of originally implied meaning!) need be taken in context of a particular (ECF) writer's other writings, and style, to properly understand their meanings, in a simple, scholarly way.
Webster points towards a few of both, and those do indeed have powerful ramifications. Argue with Webster, if one can, for though he may be over-stating the case to an extent in portions of his own editorial comment, the underlying thesis is solid. The very doctrines and dogmas most in dispute, cannot be seen to have been passed down from the beginning, as claims for such is still made for, here and elsewhere.
The real record, if one looks closely, show significant differences, and those of which the more astute and learned in Catholicism have long been aware of, as he touches upon, and then pillories.
He ends one of his own Living Tradition (Viva Voce - Whatever We Say) link target being the subheading, with:
This is where we ultimately arrive when the patristic and Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is repudiated for the concept of living tradition and an infallible magisterium — the embracing of teachings which are not only not found in Scripture or the teaching of the early Church, but which are actually contradictory to Scripture and in many cases to the teaching of the Church fathers.
Should I go to the link and paste the entire thing here? Please spare me any complaint that this was "orthodox-reformed" discussion --- unless one wishes to sift through both piles of material, and point to where your above data dump post differs, from what he is raising points to the contrary for.
The argument set forth in the article which you bring, is yet another attempt to discredit any form of sola Scriptura, is it not? Then those persons wishing to do so, perhaps could take their argument to Webster, (even as I can hear the apologetic ramping up, with one or two itching to tell me all about how such is artfully explained, and how it is so right, with the twists and turns of the apologetic able to sweep all else aside in the spectacular double-talk of the present "official" teaching).
Like I said, the argument (should one choose to accept the assignment --- cue the mission impossible theme) is with the points which Webster raises, and those similar. He brings nothing new, but simply encapsulates portions of the disagreements, which the Reformers themselves brought centuries ago, in a focused, albeit challenging manner.
The principle of sola scriptura wasn't apparently such a foul idea to Augustine, at least.
Though one might need read it entirety (my apologies) to fully grasp his position, Webster again, to explain my mention of Augustine, I'll bring here this small portion;
Augustine argued that the sacraments, including the eucharist, are signs and figures which represent or symbolize spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ’s physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again. But Christ is spiritually with his people.15 Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith: ‘To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.’16
13. For comments by Augustine on the nature of the Eucharist and the Real Presence refer to Appendix 8.
14. If the sentence . . . seems to enjoin a crime or vice. . . it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.’ Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, St. Augustin: The City of God and On Christian Doctrine, On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 563.
15. 'In respect of the presence of the Majesty we have Christ always; in respect of the presence of the flesh, it was rightly said to the disciples, But Me ye will not always have. For the Church had Him in respect of the presence of the flesh, for a few days; now, by faith it holds, not with eyes beholds Him.’ A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John by S. Augustine, Homily 92.1, p. 873; Homily 50.13 (Oxford: Parker, 1849), pp. 677-78.
16. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, St Augustin, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate XXVI.I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 168.
When it discarded Holy Tradition as binding and authoritative, Protestantism threw out the basis for a consistent and proper reading of Scripture (#2). Thus, Protestantism’s sola scriptura has resulted in its DNA code (the Bible) being stripped of its telomeres (Holy Tradition).
How funny...You can't read scripture along beside your catechism...They don't mix well...Like water and oil...
Didn't get very far in this piece...Didn't have to...
And again, it left me with the feeling that I had just dealt with a used care salesman...
The ecumenical label has been removed because the subject matter is antagonistic. Even the word “chaos” in the title is antagonistic. The thread is now “open.”
Rzman, I'm going to forego my usual snide sarcasm and ask you a very simple, direct question, and I hope you will answer it directly and succinctly. Will you at least think about doing that?
Here is a former Calvinist who, upon becoming Orthodox, feels the need to embrace evolutionism. You in a later post remark that Orthodox seminars are free of the theological liberalism of most western churches, yet evolutionism is the very essence of theological liberalism. So it looks like you fail that argument.
Nevertheless, here is my question. Please give me a straight answer: when a Fundamentalist Protestant joins one of the ancient apostolic churches, is he/she required to abjure and denounce young earth creationism? Is young earth creationism a formal, official heresy? If not, why is it that every single member of every single ancient apostolic body attacks it?
What if a person simply in good conscience cannot dismiss the first eleven chapters of Genesis as didactic parables? What if that person's conscience screams at him/her that doing this is a terrible thing and gravely wrong? Is this person still welcome in the ancient apostolic churches or should he/she settle for his inferior semi-chrstianity rather than pollute and defile the pure apostolic body with his Biblical literalism?
I'd kind to like to know the answer to this because this is precisely what happened to me, and why I walked out (and I was attending an Armenian rite church at the time) six years after converting.
If young earth creationism is forbidden, then the ancient apostolic churches should make this clear to all potential converts. To ignore the topic in official credal statements while continually attacking the young earth creationist position in all other venues whatsoever is confusing.
If young earth creationism is forbidden, then make this an official dogma . . . please. It will save a lot of emotional and intellectual torment, believe me.
Cerveza, I'd like your thoughts as well.
This can be summarized: Protestantism with its Bible alone nonsense is a sure path away from Christ and towards Oprah.