Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: CTrent1564; aMorePerfectUnion
For the record, every heresy in the early Church was because somebody read the Bible and contrived and idea that was in conflict with the orthodox consensus.

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?

526 posted on 12/30/2013 10:09:37 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212

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.


534 posted on 12/31/2013 7:17:01 AM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson