Posted on 12/28/2013 3:59:04 PM PST by NYer
That is an oft repeated assertion, not an argument, so i ask once again, are you arguing that Rome was/is the instrument and stewards of Scripture, and therefore they are its assuredly correct interpreter?
I frequently encounter posters who do not understand that an assertion is not the same as an argument.
Thanks for the very long reply. You lost me at how the PCC celebrated the Eucharist when Acts says they broke bread. You interposed centuries of tradition on a primitive NT text that clearly says breaking bread and not Eucharist. We both know there is a difference.
Evangelicals celebrate the Lord’s Supper, we baptize believers and we clearly see the Trinity in the Holy Scriptures. So your references to the historic heresies is noted but not relevant to the discussion. To claim the early fathers sniffed out heretics by tradition is absurd. They had the scriptures.
Interestingly you use “priestly” service when Paul said minister of the Gospel. It is a far stretch to use that to equate priest in the sense used by Rome.
Everything depends on the hermeneutics. The hermeneutics for Rome are church, history and tradition interpreting the scriptures. For Evangelicals, the hermeneutic is the Gospel of Grace. Scriptures for Rome is one element or pillar of faith, when it is central for evangelicals. That is what it boils down to.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 NASB
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.(NASB)
Some very good history in your post. I remember it well. To answer your question on where the Roman Church went off the rails? Process of osmosis as time went on. The rites or sacraments the NT clearly states as outward proclamations of our faith, slowly became objects of worship themself. How we avoid allowing such human tendencies morph in our church is to go back to what the Written Inspired Word of God tells us as in the reference above.
The primacy of one bishop or a few was never the NT design. If that was the case then Paul should be the first pope. The Eastern Orthodox have something to say about this as well.
Your popeless description also lacks the concept of a formal office like as in Rome that infallibly defines things like Trent did.
Popeless? Don't be ridiculous. It is you who seems to insist that the pope is relevant to questions of the deposit of faith, and in that you only reveal you don't understand the facts. The pope can never change Catholic teaching. That is itself a definitive truth of the faith. Therefore, as I have said, infallibility is not the point. Popes have only ever invoked papal infallibility two times, and as I am not discussing those situations that is an irrelevant topic. The issue is all about the approach of Catholics and others to issues regarding the deposit of faith. It is a question of historicity or novel innovation, and far too many have fallen prey to the latter and abandoned the former, which is the approach of the Church throughout history.
RCs look to their sacred magisterium for precise definitions, but in the East the office seems less concrete and the doctrine more metaphysical.
You really should stop trying to tell Catholics what Catholics do. It is only making you look silly.
I did not say you became good enough to enter purgatory, but that you become good enough to enter glory via purgatory.
A distinction without a difference. One is either saved or not, and there are no back doors into heaven. Purgation is not what you think it is.
Thus you yourself example the place for interpretation, yet i actually made it more reasonable, for as stated, they are promising never to interpret Scripture except in accordance with the UC of the fathers, not contrary to their UC.
Nothing in this makes any sense.
That is an absurd profession then, as they are promising never to violate something that does not exist, except by Rome playing loose with the term "unanimous."
It amuses me how you keep insisting on an exaggerated role of the pope while also simultaneously arguing against the legitimacy of it. It is very interesting that those who attack the Catholic Church are always the ones most in favour of papal power, even though they also love to go on about how evil it is. For us Catholics the pope certainly has definite prerogatives and authority, but it is all placed within a larger framework. Just as the president is not all-powerful in the USA, or shouldn't be, the pope cannot simply do as he wills at all times. He is bound by law too, and that really bothers those who dislike the Church. For them the pope, Rome, the Vatican, the Magisterium and even the Church are all synonyms. If I say the Church believes X or Y, they insist it is only true if the pope says X or Y. How absurd, and uncatholic. No Catholic, no real Catholic, would think that. Even if the pope were a raging heretic it wouldn't change the teaching of the Church one bit. But, that cannot be true for the attacker, and every word from every pope must be another gospel for Catholics. That way they can hold up every little statement from any pope, taken out of any context and held to strict and unnatural literalism, as some sort of proof against the faith.
And, when I hold a Catholic view of the pope, grounded in centuries of teaching and practice, you call me "popeless." It would be like somebody arguing against unconstitutional encroachments of the president and another person saying that they are not true Americans because they are suggesting a "presidentless" society in which there is no government. They sound more like anarchists, i.e. Eastern Orthodox, because they also think that kind of thing. But, of course, the person denying the limitless power of the president is really the person who knows what America is about, and what the system means and what it was built to do, and the other person is just trying to engage in straw man tactics.
That is easy. Show me in Scripture where,
1. NT pastors treated the Eucharist as the body of Christ, transubstantiated thru them.
2. The apostles preached receiving the Eucharist as the means by which one received life in themselves, without receiving which one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54).
3. The Holy Spirit distinctively titled NT pastors "priests" (hiereus). (Do not try to argue it comes from presbuteros,as it does not , except by way of unique imposed functional equivalence.)
4. The that differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) and also made distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7)
5. Clerical celibacy is required (with rare exceptions), and which presumes all such have that gift.
6. A separate class of believers called “saints.”
7. Infants (not by conjecture) were sprinkled to become regenerate, and thus formally justified, having personally fulfilled the stated requirements for baptism.
8. The apostolic gospel of salvation began with becoming good enough inside thru regeneration (via baptism) to be declared just, sometimes in recognition of proxy faith, and usually ended with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory commencing at death.
9. It is not characteristic of Holy Spirit to reveal notable aspects of its significant subjects, from long life, to escaping death or being bodily assumed to God, to extra toes, to unique diets, to being sinless, etc., so that it should be expected He would mention a women was sinless and a perpetual virgin and who was bodily assumed to Heaven.
10. Mary was preserved sinless, and lived in perpetual virginity, contrary to the normal description of marriage, as leave and cleave.
11 . Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven
12. Mary was crowned as Queen of Heaven, and able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to her, or that any saint in Heaven was.
13. Anyone in Scripture except pagans prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven)
14. NT believers went to purgatory to suffer commencing at death in order to enter Heaven, versus their postmortem location of the saints being with the Lord.
15. A perpetual assuredly infallible (if conditionally) magisterium is promised.
16. An assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and assurance of faith.
17. In Acts and epistles Peter is confirmed to be the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself, and then upon the apostles (plural) and prophets.
18. NT churches are directed to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, or did so, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the supreme or last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
19.There is any apostolic successors (like for James) named besides for Judas to maintain the original 12 (by casting lots no less).
20. The NT supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
21. A church that taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.
I could go on, or we could then go on about historical proof that the NT church saw Peter as the bishop of Rome over all Christians, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
And homosexual unions are sanctioned upon misuse of the Constitution. You logic is what? That the instruments and stewards of Scripture are the assuredly correct interpreters of it?
Every time I hear that from the pope and on down the line, I'm gobsmacked.
Like politicians talking about our "democracy" which is actually a Constitutional Republic.
The gulf between the God of the Bible and the "god" of Islam is impossible too see across.
How anyone could see a connection (same God) is amazing.
I run into that a lot......
+1
Those non-Biblical beliefs were made up out of whole cloth, much of it secured from pagan weavers...
y. Trent. Where Rome anathematized itself by declaring salvation by faith is false, in direct contradiction to Orange.
Common among RCs, taking after Rome, whose assertions are held as being truth because she says they are.
It amazes me the amount of deception that so many have fallen for.
I am done dealing with you, take your polemics somewhere else. In addition, why is it you need to ping all these other people when you post me.
I have dealt with many of these FR Prots a long time and know how this game is played. A Catholic gets into a thread with 1 of you people, they these a swarm of you people in every thread.
Since that is a simple question, my point is this. The notion of Sola Scriptura is false. It was not a belief of the Early Church nor can you find it in the NT. So my point is when someone today says I read the Bible and I deduce that it means 1 and someone says oh I think is means 2 and the Church’s Faith says no, it is not 1 or 2 because the Church’s Faith is, for the sake of argument, 3. Then you have a problem.
As Pelikan {Written while he was a Protestant; he later returned to his Slavic roots and became Orthodox] notes “The List of canonical or apostolic books continued to fluctuate for centuries, what did not fluctuate was Doctrine, precisely formulated [he is referring to Doctrine] against the heresies prescribed in this chapter” [The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. pp. 114-115]
Pelikan continues and notes that the notion of sola scriptura is not found in the anti-Nicene Church, but neither was there Sola Tradition. Still, Pelikan points out as the same time, it is essential to note that doctrinal, liturgical and exegetical material of quite different sorts were all lumped into the term tradition, from the Christological interpretation of certain OT passages and other interpretations and the process of accretion continued beyond the anti-Nicene Church.
Pelikan states regarding St. Ireneaus that for him God in Christ was both the origin and content of tradition. And with respect to this Tradition, Pelikan [p.116] continues with stating that so palpable was this apostolic tradition that even if the apostles had not left behind the Scriptures as normative evidence of their doctrine, the Church would still be in position to follow “The structures of tradition handed on to those to whom they had committed the Churches[Iren, Against Heresies 3.4.1]
So my logic is I believe Christ founded a Church and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles to carry on the message of Christ and that the successors of the Apostles, who received the message from the Apostles [those men reported in Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Ireneaus, and those men themselves given they believed the same Apostolic Tradition] and then those same Church Fathers cited previously, etc would still be guided by the Holy Spirit to preserve the orthodox faith.
Oh, I see you have read Lorraine Boettner.
Gamecock:
Well, at least you are willing to give a date. Ok, so for you it is the Council of Trent. Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty to give a date and point of time when you believe the Catholic Church went off the railroad track.
“Since that is a simple question, my point is this. The notion of Sola Scriptura is false. It was not a belief of the Early Church nor can you find it in the NT. “
1. You don’t seem to understand what Sola Scriptura actually means.
2. Sola Ecclesia isn’t in the Bible.
“So my logic is I believe Christ founded a Church and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles to carry on the message of Christ and that the successors of the Apostles,”
1. So your “logic” and “belief” are the basis of truth? Your Own Personal Interpretation of Truth (YOPIT).
2. Christ founded an “assembly” a “gathering”. Church is a concept of Germanic origin.
I did not say sola ecclesia was in the bible. All I did was point out, using one of the work of Pelikan, one of the best “Patristic and Church History Scholars of the 20th century” to make the point there was No Sola Scriptura and I also made the point there was No Sola Tradition.
And for the record, I do understand what Sola Scriptura means. I see it in action on this forum and have seen it here for years. I see in in action in the world right now. I have seen it in action throughout history. I can see quite plainly what it means.
And for the record, the Catholic Church does not teach Sola Ecclesia in the way I think you are suggesting that is the Church can set itself up and above BOTH 1) Scripture and 2)Tradition. It is like a 3 legged Chair, it is the Church where both the Scripture and Tradition are all linked into One [sort of like the Trinity so to speak] and together the Church ensures that Scripture and Tradition are protected and the Apostolic Faith is preserved and passed on.
So I don’t try to put Scripture, Tradition and the Church into some sort brawl and fistfight among each other. They are unified because all of them, the Apostolic Tradition, the Scriptures, which are part of that Tradition, and the Church, all have there source and origin in CHrist.
Credit all to JAMES KIEFER...
OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:
(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.But in fact, the argument should be of the form:
(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith. My comments on Line (2) of the argument appear below.
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.