Posted on 01/25/2014 6:51:38 AM PST by GonzoII
Sola Scriptura – An Unbiblical Recipe for Confusion
Sola scriptura was the central doctrine and foundation for all I believed when I was Protestant. On a popular level, it simply meant, “If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!” And it seemed so simple. And yet, I do not recall ever hearing a detailed teaching explicating it. It was always a given. Unchallenged. Diving deeper into its meaning, especially when I was challenged to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism, I found there to be no book specifically on the topic and no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors.
Once I got past the superficial, I had to try to answer real questions like, what role does tradition play? How explicit does a doctrine have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? How many times does it have to be mentioned in Scripture before it would be dogmatic? Where does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How do we know what the canon of Scripture is using the principle of sola scriptura? Who is authorized to write Scripture in the first place? When was the canon closed? Or, the best question of all: where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible? These questions and more were left virtually unanswered or left to the varying opinions of various Bible teachers.
The Protestant Response
In answer to this last question, “Where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?” most Protestants will immediately respond as I did, by simply citing II Tm. 3:16:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
“How can it get any plainer than that? Doesn’t that say the Bible is all we need?” Question answered.
The fact is: II Timothy 3—or any other text of Scripture—does not even hint at sola scriptura. It says Scripture is inspired and necessary to equip “the man of God,” but never does it say Scripture alone is all anyone needs. We’ll come back to this text in particular later. But in my experience as a Protestant, it was my attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism that led me to conclude: sola scriptura is 1) unreasonable 2) unbiblical and 3) unworkable.
Sola Scriptura is Unreasonable
When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authority—Scripture. This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. One cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Koran, and other books claim inspiration. This does not make them inspired. One must prove the point outside of the text itself to avoid the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Thus, the question remains: how do we know the various books of the Bible are inspired and therefore canonical? And remember: the Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura in the process.
II Tim. 3:16 is not a valid response to the question. The problems are manifold. Beyond the fact of circular reasoning, for example, I would point out the fact that this verse says all Scripture is inspired tells us nothing of what the canon consists. Just recently, I was speaking with a Protestant inquirer about this issue and he saw my point. He then said words to the effect of, “I believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth as Jesus said in Jn. 16:13. The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them to gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired word of God. God would not leave us without his word to guide us.”
That answer is much more Catholic than Protestant! Yes, Jn. 16:13 does say the Spirit will lead the apostles—and by allusion, the Church—into all truth. But this verse has nothing to say about sola scriptura. Nor does it say a word about the nature or number of books in the canon. Catholics certainly agree that the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to canonize the Scriptures because the Catholic Church teaches that there is an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit. The obvious problem is my Protestant friend did not use sola scriptura as his guiding principle to arrive at his conclusion. How does, for example, Jn. 16:13 tell us that Hebrews was written by an apostolic writer and that it is inspired of God? We would ultimately have to rely on the infallibility of whoever “the Holy Spirit” is guiding to canonize the Bible so that they could not mishear what the Spirit was saying about which books of the Bible are truly inspired.
The fact is, the Bible does not and cannot give us the answer to this question about the canon. It is an historical fact that the Church used Sacred Tradition outside of Scripture for her criterion for the canon. And the early Christians, many of whom disagreed on the issue of the canon, also needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree on the whole matter.
In order to put this argument of my friend into perspective, can you imagine if a Catholic made a similar claim to demonstrate, say, Mary to be the Mother of God? “We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth.” Would the Protestant respond with a hearty, amen? I think not! I can almost hear the response. “Show me in the Bible where Mary is the Mother of God! I don’t want to hear about God guiding the Church!” Wouldn’t the same question remain for the Protestant concerning the canon? “Show me in the Bible where the canon of Scripture is, what the criterion for the canon is, who can and cannot write Scripture, etc.”
Will the Circle be Unbroken?
The Protestant response at this point is often an attempt to use the same argument against the Catholic. “How do you know the Scriptures are inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular because you say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so and then say the Scriptures are inspired and infallible because the Church says so!”
The Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say “the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so.” The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. However, it is true that we know the Scriptures to be inspired because the Church has told us so. That is also an historical fact. However, this is not circular reasoning. When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired. As any reputable historian will tell you, the New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history. To deny the substance of the historical documents recorded therein would be absurd. However, one cannot deduce from this that they are inspired. There are many accurate historical documents that are not inspired. However, the Scriptures do give us accurate historical information whether one holds to their inspiration or not. Further, this testimony of the Bible is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christians and non-Christian writers like Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and more. It is on this basis that we can say it is an historical fact that Jesus lived, died and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over 500 eyewitnesses. Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the veracity of the Christ-event (see Lk. 1:1-4, Jn. 21:18-19, 24-25, Acts 1:1-11, I Cr. 15:1-8).
Now, what do we find when we examine the historical record? Jesus Christ—as a matter of history–established a Church, not a book, to be the foundation of the Christian Faith (see Mt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18. Cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10,20-21; 4:11-15; I Tm. 3:15; Hb. 13:7,17, etc.). He said of his Church “He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk. 10:16). The many books that comprise what we call the Bible never tell us crucial truths such as the fact that they are inspired, who can and cannot be the human authors of them, who authored them at all, or, as I said before, what the canon of Scripture is in the first place. And this is just to name a few examples. What is very clear historically is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for him (see Lk. 20:29-32, Mt. 10:40, 28:18-20). It was members of this Kingdom—the Church—that would write the Scripture, preserve its many texts and eventually canonize it. The Scriptures cannot write or canonize themselves. To put it simply, reason clearly rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle because one cannot determine what the “scriptura” is using the principle of sola scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical
Let us now consider the most common text used by Protestants to “prove” sola scriptura, II Tm. 3:16, which I quoted above:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The problem with using this text as such is threefold: 1. Strictly speaking, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. 2. It does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. 3. The Bible teaches oral Tradition to be on a par with and just as necessary as the written Tradition, or Scripture.
1. What’s Old is Not New
Let us examine the context of the passage by reading the two preceding verses:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood (italics added) you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
In context, this passage does not refer to the New Testament at all. None of the New Testament books had been written when St. Timothy was a child! To claim this verse in order to authenticate a book, say, the book of Revelation, when it had most likely not even been written yet, is more than a stretch. That is going far beyond what the text actually claims.
2. The Trouble With Sola
As a Protestant, I was guilty of seeing more than one sola in Scripture that simply did not exist. The Bible clearly teaches justification by faith. And we Catholics believe it. However, we do not believe in justification by faith alone because, among many other reasons, the Bible says, we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, emphasis added). Analogously, when the Bible says Scripture is inspired and profitable for “the man of God,” to be “equipped for every good work,” we Catholics believe it. However, the text of II Tim. 3:16 never says Scripture alone. There is no sola to be found here either! Even if we granted II Tm. 3:16 was talking about all of Scripture, it never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith. A rule of faith, to be sure! But not the sole rule of faith.
James 1:4 illustrates clearly the problem with Protestant exegesis of II Tim. 3:16:
And let steadfastness (patience) have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to II Tm. 3:16 we would have to say that all we need is patience to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, etc.
Of course, any Christian would immediately say this is absurd. And of course it is. But James’ emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than St. Paul’s emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola to be found in either text. Sola patientia would be just as much an error as is sola scriptura.
3. Traditions of Men Vs. The Tradition of God
Not only is the Bible silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but Scripture is remarkably plain in teaching oral Tradition to be just as much the word of God as is Scripture. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, St. Paul said:
And we also thank God… that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God… (I Thess. 2:13)
According to St. Paul, the spoken word from the apostles was just as much the word of God as was the later written word. Further, when St. Paul wrote II Thessalonians, he urged the Christians there to receive both the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are referred to as the word of God.
So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (II Thess. 2:15).
A common problem among Protestants at this point is a matter of semantics. “Tradition” is often viewed in a negative light because of Jesus’ condemnation of “the tradition of men” in Mark 7:8.
You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.
Notice, this verse makes very clear what kind of tradition it was that Jesus condemned. Jesus condemned the tradition of men, not all tradition. And obviously so; otherwise, you would have Jesus contradicting St. Paul. In fact, you would have Jesus contradicting himself in Matthew 23:2-3:
The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Jesus both refers to an oral tradition—the chair of Moses—and commands the apostles to believe and obey it.
Sola Scriptura is Unworkable
When it comes to the tradition of Protestantism—sola scriptura—the silence of the text of Scripture is deafening. When it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition, the Scriptures are clear. And when it comes to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the biblical text is equally as clear:
If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone … But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you … If he refuses to listen … tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Mt. 18:15-17)
According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline. But isn’t it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years ago—a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 denominations that have derived from it?
For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be “one shepherd and one fold” in Jn. 10:16, this is what he had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable and unbiblical, but it is unworkable. The proof is in the puddin’!
But Didn’t Jesus Himself Believe Sola Scriptura?
When the Devil tempted Jesus three times in Matthew 4, Jesus always responded with Scripture. In fact, with the second of the three temptations the Devil himself began with Scripture. As an aside, I would have to say that was not very smart of the Devil. If you are going to tempt the Word of God, do you really think you are going to outsmart the Word of God with the word of God?
At any rate, in Matt. 4:6, the Devil begins, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down [from the pinnacle of the Temple]; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone’ (quoting Psalm 91:11-12).”
Jesus then responded with Scripture in Matt. 4:7, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’ (quoting Deut. 6:16).” Doesn’t this prove Jesus believed in sola scriptura?
Absolutely not!
Just because someone quotes Scripture as an authority, this does not mean he believes in sola scriptura. The Catholic Church quotes Scripture all the time and teaches that Scripture is the inerrant word of God. But what does that prove?
The key here is to understand Jesus not only quoted Scripture as authoritative, but he also referred to Tradition as authoritative in texts like Luke 16:22 (ever read anywhere of “Abraham’s Bosom” in the Old Testament? No, this was Jewish Tradition), Matt. 2:23 (Jesus refers to an Oral Tradition “spoken by the prophets” that is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament), and Matt. 23:1-3, which we saw above, where he speaks of the Tradition of “the chair of Moses”).
He also refers to his own authority when he says over and over, “You have heard it said,” and he often quotes Scripture immediately thereafter, but then he says, “But I say unto you…” He then either introduces new revelation or gives an authoritative interpretation of a biblical text (see Matt. 5:21-48) or, sometimes he simply gives an authoritative interpretation of what Scripture truly means, such as in Matt: 5:10-20.
So did Jesus Christ believe in sola scriptura? By no means! Neither should his Church. And while the Church cannot give new revelation as this ended with the death of the last apostolic man (and we know that because of, you guessed it, Tradition in order to understand texts of Scripture like Jude 3), the Church employs Scripture and Tradition just like her Lord, using her teaching authority she receives from her Lord (Matt. 18:15-18).
If you like this post and you would like to learn more, click here
This thread is clearly not the one we’re thinking of, but it IS evidence that they’ve been pulling that stunt before. It’s from 2009.
Book Review: Discovering a Lost Heritage: The Catholic Origins of America
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2330687/posts
Certain RCs have indeed hijacked FR and turned it into a Roman Catholic informational and promotional service. At last count there was at least 10 per day, which seems to have gone up. I have wondered if they gain an indulgence with each one, and perhaps some are trying to see what they can get away with.
But which has much resulted in Rome's elitist presumptions being exposed even more for what they are, " by God's grace.
No, not the same thread. Thanks for looking though.
At least you said IDEA...
Of course!
I suppose from the Catholic perspective of moral superiority with regards to authority, that comment makes sense because of the OTHER comment that caused it's generation.
Oh but it WAS written down, and quite early at that. Catholics just don't have the audacity to call it SCRIPTURE.
They had 'traditons' for HOW many years before they compiled the bible?
I wonder why they didn't slip them into it when they were the only game in town?
HMMMmmm...
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.
|
Sola Ecclesia vs Scripture – An Unbiblical Recipe for Delusion You are wrong on multiple levels. What Scripture supports is that it is the only tangible, testable, transcendent comprehensive revelation that is wholly inspired of God. And that it is Scripture alone that is the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as the assured Word of God, and which is abundantly evidenced </a>.* And therefore the church DID NOT begin under Rome's alternative, that of sola ecclesia, in which the church alone is the supreme authority for determining Truth, based upon historical descent, etc. And instead it began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which Rome cannot do, and instead Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. In addition, Scripture formally provides the Truth needed for salvation, so that a normal soul by God's grace can read a passage such as Acts 10:36-43 and be saved. Furthermore, Scripture also materially provides for the both writings and men being recognized as being of God (without a perpetually infallible magisterium), and thus for a canon. And it also provides for the church and its teaching office, etc. which function classic statements such as the Westminster Confession affirms. Thus it is Rome under her sola ecclesia presumption which subjugates Scripture to herself, and makes it an instrument to serve her interests, that is an erroneous unScriptural foundation. And it shows by her manifest contrasts with the NT church.
The Bible clearly teaches justification by faith. And we Catholics believe it. However, we do not believe in justification by faith alone because, among many other reasons, the Bible says, we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, emphasis added). Misinterpretation. Reformers clearly taught that while it is precisely faith that appropriates justification, works justify one as having faith, and that faith without works of faith is dead. And it is RCs that evidence they least believe in works, as Catholics are far less committed that those who hold Scripture as the supreme and basically literal standard for truth. Scripture is remarkably plain in teaching oral Tradition to be just as much the word of God as is Scripture. And yet is based upon Scripture that we know the apostles did orally preached the word of God, for oral tradition existed nebulous form supremely subject to corruption. And which is tested by it, thus manifesting the Scripture is the assured word of God and supreme standard for testing truth claims. “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) Moreover, what Paul is referring to here is not ancient traditions such as Mary being bodily assumed into heaven and made into a doctrine even when there is no early record of it, but known truths which the Thessalonians and Corinthians had heard , and which could have been written. And in fact, there is absolutely zero proof that what Paul was referring to here was not written, as was the norm for any thing called the “word of God/the Lord.” In addition, unlike Rome, the apostles were given special revelation it were authors of holy Scripture, while preaching the truth of Scripture is itself called the word. (Acts 8:4) And thus even today evangelical pastors exhort their congregations to take heed to what they orally preached as being the word of God. Therefore, using the example of the apostles preaching the word of God, that being known Scriptural truths, to justify Rome channeling doctrines out of its nebulous virtual bottomless pit of oral tradition, and making herself supreme over Scripture by Tradition, is what is not supported by Scripture. When it comes to the tradition of Protestantism—sola scriptura—the silence of the text of Scripture is deafening. To those who have their hands over their ears and eyes. tell it to the church; (Mt. 18:15-17)..and if he refuses to listen even to the church,.. According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal Absolutely not. And if it were the church would be invalid itself as began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses. Mt. 18:15-17 has its precedents in the Old Testament (Dt. 17) in which cases were brought to judges whose verdict was final, even being a capital crime to disobey it. Yet just like the Supreme Court today, that did not render them assuredly infallible. And therefore God often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it. And therefore the church began following an itinerant preacher, whom the magisterium rejected, but who establishes claims upon scriptural substantiation. Elitist Rome therefore has a false foundation, contrary to how the church began, but like the Pharisees who reject the Lord Jesus, she arrogantly presumes to think of herself above that which is written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) Much like Babylon, “she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day. For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this? Unity itself is not the goal the godly and thus Christ actually came to bring division as well as unity among those who love the truth, which requires separation from Rome, and results in the unity that transcends external tribalism. Cults like the Watchtower Society show far more comprehensive unity than Catholicism, while North Korea has the greatest unity on earth, and Rome also much relied upon the sword of man for her unity until she was disarmed. And having lost that, unity within Rome is largely a paper one and very limited, while in reality Catholicism exists in schism and in sects and abounds with disagreements and varied interpretations on what she teaches. Moreover, Catholics know very little of the unity of the spirit by evangelicals realize based upon a shared personal conversion to Christ and Scripture-based relationship , which transcends external divisions. Therefore, under both Sola ecclesia and Sola Scriptura, we have both unity and division, the difference being a matter of degrees and quality, with the kind of unity Rome has being cultic or apathetic, while unity based upon objective examination of the truth by lovers of it is of superior quality, if not quantity, that which relies upon implicit submission to a self-proclaimed infallible entity of men. In contrast to Rome, the church's unity was not based upon the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium, which suppresses objectively examining the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of her teachings. Instead as said, it was based upon scriptural substantiation in Word and empower. And without the apostles with the manifest power, purity, and performance they had then the unity the early church had would not have been realized, and only insofar as the church is like that can we have organizational unity today. And as far as churches are concerned, Rome is not not even in the running. Matt. 4:7...Just because someone quotes Scripture as an authority, this does not mean he believes in sola scriptura. But the Lord Jesus did not simply respond with Scripture, by a defined that as being the word of God, Not some nebulous oral tradition. Moreover, it was not tradition that the Lord Jesus opened the minds of the disciples to, but “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,” (Luke 24:45) and which Paul reasoned out of, (Acts 17:2) and the a Apollos convinced the Jews by, (Acts 18:28) not ancient oral traditions. In addition, the the miracles that mainly convinced the Gentiles are part of scriptural substantiation, as Scripture establishes this manner of attestation to truth, as tested by Scripture. So did Jesus Christ believe in sola scriptura? By no means! Neither should his Church. So did Jesus Christ believe in sola ecclesia? By no means! Neither should His Church. Instead, as said, the Lord Jesus and the early church established their truth claims upon scriptural substantiation (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) And therefore the foundation upon which the church was built is contrary to that of Rome, who presumes of herself and assured veracity which is more akin to the Pharisees and rejected Christ. And that she is to be rejected, as you the church rejected them in the light of Scripture as supreme. |
And didn't you hear ? Catholic invented hospitals. And the wheel i suppose.
Hospitals, yes.
But the most famous foundation was that of St. Basil at Cæsarea in Cappadocia (369). This "Basilias", as it was called, took on the dimensions of a city with its regular streets, buildings for different classes of patients, dwellings for physicians and nurses, workshop and industrial schools.
And universities.
This consortium magistorum included the professors of theology, law, medicine, and arts (philosophy). As the teachers of the same subject had special interests, they naturally formed smaller groups within the centre body. The name "faculty" originally designated a discipline or branch of knowledge, and was employed in this sense by Honorius III in his letter (18 Feb., 1219) to the scholars of Paris; later, it came to mean the group of professors engaged in teaching the same subject. The closer organization into faculties was occasioned in the first instance by questions which arose in 1213, regarding the conferring of degrees.
It also gives us ample opportunity to expose the errors of the RCC. The Holy Spirit will enlighten those lurkers who He wills if we pray that He gives us the information and words.
The cult of Roman Catholicism tries to rewrite history like the Obama Administration! Actually, the Greeks began the cultural revolution 300-400 years before Christ.
Hippocrates, (born c. 460 bc , island of Cos, Greece—died c. 375 , Larissa, Thessaly), ancient Greek physician who lived during Greece’s Classical period and is traditionally regarded as the father of medicine. It is difficult to isolate the facts of Hippocrates’ life from the later tales told about him or to assess his medicine accurately in the face of centuries of reverence for him as the ideal physician. About 60 medical writings have survived that bear his name, most of which were not written by him. He has been revered for his ethical standards in medical practice, mainly for the Hippocratic Oath, which, it is suspected, he did not write.
Plato’s Academy, founded in the 380s, was the ultimate ancestor of the modern university (hence the English term academic); an influential centre of research and learning, it attracted many men of outstanding ability. The great mathematicians Theaetetus (417–369 bce) and Eudoxus of Cnidus (c. 395–c. 342 bce) were associated with it. Although Plato was not a research mathematician, he was aware of the results of those who were, and he made use of them in his own work. For 20 years Aristotle was also a member of the Academy. He started his own school, the Lyceum, only after Plato’s death, when he was passed over as Plato’s successor at the Academy, probably because of his connections to the court of Macedonia.
No it is not, as faith in Scripture is not based upon it simply saying so, but upon the Divine qualities that attest to its divine inspiration, like as they do to a man of God. And not because a supposedly infallible magisterium said they were.
Thus writings were recognized and established as being of God long before Rome presumed to be the authority necessary for that. And thus souls had assurance that Jesus was the Christ, based upon Scriptural substantiation - not because the stewards of Scripture said so.
But Rome denies you can have real assurance from Scripture, as that is contrary to her presumption, and thus when defending Rome as the one true church (OTC), the Catholic predictably appeal to his sole authority—the Church.
This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. For the Catholic's basis for assurance that Rome is the OTC is because she infallibly defined herself as being so, who alone can provide real assurance of truth. To hold otherwise would be to validate evangelical means of determining truth.
The RC can said some evidences persuaded him to trust Rome, but that is a fallible decision to trust a church as if it were God.
The Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say “the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so.” The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. However, it is true that we know the Scriptures to be inspired because the Church has told us so. That is also an historical fact.
Staples is now engaging in the typical RC recourse of argument by assertion. That Rome is established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord Jesus, who said the Church is infallible, and which is a historical fact, is one massive interpretative lie, and which Rome's interpretation is the only one that is held to be authoritatively true.
That is to say, according to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation can be authoritatively correct. Staple's pretensions of establishing Rome based upon evidences are not based upon the premise that one may have assurance of Truth based on such, which is how the church began, but is based upon the premise that these evidences show Rome to be the one true infallible church because she said so.
When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired.
That statement itself is telling. In attempting to prove Rome is the supreme authority on Truth and over Scripture, he must polemically divest it of its Divine inspiration, since only Rome can authoritatively give us assurance that it is!
Yet as said, both men and writings of God, and indeed the bulk of our Bible, were recognized as being so before there ever was a church of Rome that presumed she was necessary to establish such.
And under Her premise of historical descent establishing her as the steward of Scripture, inheritor of the promises, and thus incontestable authority on truth, and who and what was of God, then the church itself would be rendered invalid, for has said, it began in dissent from those who had historical descent and were the stewards of Scripture, and inheritor inheritor of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4).
What is very clear historically is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for him
Rather, what is very clear is that this and other so-called evidences four. Rome do not teach Roman Catholicism with her perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium and pope reigning supreme overall, with "priests" sprinkling infants infants recognition of proxy faith, formally justifying them by interior holiness, and gaining spiritual light by physically eating human flesh, and finally becoming good enough in purgatory to enter heaven, among multitude other things alien to the New Testament church. .
In reality, the more Staples attempts to make an argument based upon history the more it betrays his premise that this argument is considered true because Rome says she is what it attempts to prove.
And in addition to Scripture teaching contrary to Rome's pretensions and propaganda, even Catholic scholarship, among that of others, provides evidence contrary to Rome's claims of apostolic succession, etc.
In ancient Greece, temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius, known as Asclepieia functioned as centres of medical advice, prognosis, and healing.[6] Asclepeia provided carefully controlled spaces conducive to healing and fulfilled several of the requirements of institutions created for healing.[7] Under his Roman name Æsculapius, he was provided with a temple (291 BC) on an island in the Tiber in Rome, where similar rites were performed.[8]
Institutions created specifically to care for the ill also appeared early in India. Fa Xian, a Chinese Buddhist monk who travelled across India ca. 400 CE, recorded in his travelogue that:The heads of the Vaisya [merchant] families in them [all the kingdoms of north India] establish in the cities houses for dispensing charity and medicine. All the poor and destitute in the country, orphans, widowers, and childless men, maimed people and cripples, and all who are diseased, go to those houses, and are provided with every kind of help, and doctors examine their diseases. They get the food and medicines which their cases require, and are made to feel at ease; and when they are better, they go away of themselves.[9]
The earliest surviving encyclopaedia of medicine in Sanskrit is the Carakasamhita (Compendium of Caraka). This text, which describes the building of a hospital is dated by Dominik Wujastyk of the University College London from the period between 100 BCE and CE150.[10] According to Dr.Wujastyk, the description by Fa Xian is one of the earliest accounts of a civic hospital system anywhere in the world and, coupled with Caraka’s description of how a clinic should be equipped, suggests that India may have been the first part of the world to have evolved an organized cosmopolitan system of institutionally-based medical provision.[10]
The Romans constructed buildings called valetudinaria for the care of sick slaves, gladiators, and soldiers around 100 B.C., and many were identified by later archeology. ..The declaration of Christianity as accepted religion in the Roman Empire drove an expansion of the provision of care. Saint Sampson the Hospitable built some of the earliest hospitals in the Roman Empire.
The first prominent Islamic hospital was founded in Damascus, Syria in around 707 with assistance from Christians. More .
Universities? Hardly. They were a Johnny-Come-Lately.
................
THE ORIGIN OF UNIVERSITIES
Shangyang, “higher school,” China, established sometime during the Yu period: 2257-2208 BC
Imperial Central School, established sometime in Zhou Dynasty: 1046-249 BC
(”The early Chinese state depended upon literate, educated officials for operation of the empire, and an imperial examination was established in the Sui Dynasty (581–618) for evaluating and selecting officials from the general populace.”)
Takshashila University, Taxila, Pakistan, 7th c. BC
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/OriginUniversities.html
Allow me to contribute a couple:
The Barren Harvest of Protestantism
The Blessed Virgin Mary and the Catholic Discovery of America
Book Review: Discovering a Lost Heritage: The Catholic Origins of America
How Catholic Nuns Shaped America
"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" ( Book Review )
And probably discovered fire as well.
Thanks. I knew someone could come through.
The so called *apostolic succession* has deemed God a mere allegory and created new deities to pray to. This succession has devised their own methodology of deciding who is and is not a saint. Christ Himself said call no flesh man ‘Father’, yet, through the ‘apostolic succession’ their high priest is called ‘Holy Father’. One cannot get much farther away from ‘sola scriptura’ than that tradition all by itself. By the way in the last book of the WORD, Revelation, there are 7 churches listed not just one. Listed by each of these churches are their doctrines, what is acceptable doctrine and what doctrines causes all but two to fall short. These warning are given, yet in majority ignored. And then the self praising and boasting comes that without the ‘apostolic succession’ none of we commoners would even have the WORD.
There can be no doubt as to why Rome rejects ‘sola scriptura’, because in the ‘Volume of the Book’ their traditions are not scriptural, but created by their claims of divine ‘apostolic succession’. God used a donkey to get a preacher for hire attention, so all this hiding from the WORD is a short term activity.
Solomon (Ecclesiastes 1) wrote long before the invention of an ‘apostolic succession’ there was nothing new under the sun, what had been would be again... And Paul basically restated this warning, ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
I love using ‘sola scriptura’ on the unbelievers.
“Sola Scriptura”
Show me in the Bible where the word Sola Sciptura is mentioned. Tradition came WAY BEFORE words were put in print, by the Catholic Church I might add.
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.