Posted on 01/06/2003 8:09:14 AM PST by lockeliberty
In the 1980s and early 1990s, a controversy erupted among dispensationalists which came to be referred to as the Lordship Salvation controversy. On one side of the debate were men such as Zane Hodges1 and Charles Ryrie2 who taught a reductionistic doctrine of solafide which absolutized the word “alone” in the phrase “justification by faith alone” and removed it from its overall theological context. Faith was reduced to little more than assent to the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions. Repentance, sanctification, submission to Christ’s Lordship, love, and perseverance were all said to be unnecessary for salvation. Advocates of this position claimed that it was the classical Reformation position taught by Martin Luther and John Calvin. On the other side of the debate was John MacArthur who argued that these men were clearly abandoning the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone.3 In addition to the books written by the primary dispensationalist participants, numerous Reformed theologians wrote books and articles criticizing this alteration of the doctrine of solafide.4 A heated theological controversy began which continues in some circles even to this day.
Ironically, a similar drastic alteration of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura has occurred over the last 150 years, yet this has caused hardly a stir among the theological heirs of the Reformation, who have usually been quick to notice any threatening move against the Reformed doctrine of justification. So much time and effort has been spent guarding the doctrine of sola fide against any perversion or change that many do not seem to have noticed that the classical and foundational Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has been so altered that is virtually unrecognizable. In its place Evangelicals have substituted an entirely different doctrine. Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.5
Modern Evangelicalism has done the same thing to sola scriptura that Hodges and Ryrie did to solafide. But unfortunately so little attention is paid to the doctrine of sola scriptura today that even among trained theologians there is confusion and ambiguity when the topic is raised. Contradictory and insufficient definitions of sola scriptura are commonplace not only among broadly Evangelical authors but among Reformed authors as well. In this chapter we shall examine this aberrant modern Evangelical concept of solo scriptura and explain why it is imperative that the Evangelical church recognize it to be as dangerous as the distorted concepts of solafide that are prevalent in the Church today.
EVANGELICAL INDIVIDUALISM
The modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is nothing more than a new version of Tradition 0. Instead of being defined as the sole infallible authority, the Bible is said to be the “sole basis of authority”6 Tradition is not allowed in any sense; the ecumenical creeds are virtually dismissed; and the Church is denied any real authority. On the surface it would seem that this modern Evangelical doctrine would have nothing in common with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrines of authority. But despite the very real differences, the modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy. Each results in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. Unlike the Roman Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position, however, which invariably result in the autonomy of the Church, the modern Evangelical position inevitably results in the autonomy of the individual believer.
We have already seen that there is a major difference between the concept of Scripture and tradition taught by the classical Reformers and the concept taught by the Anabaptists and their heirs. The Anabaptist concept, here referred to as Tradition 0, attempted to deny the authority of tradition in any real sense. The Scriptures were considered not only the sole final and infallible authority, but the only authority whatsoever. The Enlightenment added the philosophical framework in which to comprehend this individualism. The individual reason was elevated to the position of final authority. Appeals to antiquity and tradition of any kind were ridiculed. In the early years of the United States, democratic populism swept the people along in its fervor.7 The result is a modern American Evangelicalism which has redefined sola scriptura in terms of secular Enlightenment rationalism and rugged democratic individualism.
Perhaps the best way to explain the fundamental problem with the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura would be through the use of an illustration to which many believers may be able to relate. Almost every Christian who has wrestled with theological questions has encountered the problem of competing interpretations of Scripture. If one asks a dispensationalist pastor, for example, why he teaches premillennialism, the answer will be, “Because the Bible teaches premillennialism.” If one asks the conservative Presbyterian pastor across the street why he teaches amillennialism (or postmillennialism), the answer will likely be, “Because that is what the Bible teaches.” Each man will claim that the other is in error, but by what ultimate authority do they typically make such a judgment? Each man will claim that he bases his judgment on the authority of the Bible, but since each man’s interpretation is mutually exclusive of the other’s, both interpretations cannot be correct. How then do we discern which interpretation is correct?
The typical modern Evangelical solution to this problem is to tell the inquirer to examine the arguments on both sides and decide which of them is closest to the teaching of Scripture. He is told that this is what sola scriptura means — to individually evaluate all doctrines according to the only authority, the Scripture. Yet in reality, all that occurs is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpretations of other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation. Rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.
A fundamental and self-evident truth that seems to be unconsciously overlooked by proponents of the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is that no one is infallible in his interpretation of Scripture. Each of us comes to the Scripture with different presuppositions, blind spots, ignorance of important facts, and, most importantly, sinfulness. Because of this we each read things into Scripture that are not there and miss things in Scripture that are there. Unfortunately, a large number of modern Evangelicals have followed in the footsteps of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), founder of the Disciples of Christ, who naively believed he could come to Scripture with absolutely no preconceived notions or biases. We have already mentioned Campbell’s naive statement, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.”8
The same ideas were expressed by Lewis Sperry Chafer, the extremely influential founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary. Chafer believed that his lack of any theological training gave him the ability to approach scriptural interpretation without bias. He said, “the very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind and to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches.”9 This, however, is simply impossible. Unless one can escape the effects of sin, ignorance, and all previous learning, one cannot read the Scriptures without some bias and blind spots. This is a given of the post-Fall human condition.
This naive belief in the ability to escape one’s own noetic and spiritual limitations led Campbell and his modern Evangelical heirs to discount any use of secondary authorities. The Church, the creeds, and the teachings of the early fathers were all considered quaint at best. The discarding of the creeds is a common feature of the modern Evangelical notion of solo scriptura. It is so pervasive that one may find it even in the writings of prominent Reformed theologians. For example, in a recently published and well-received Reformed systematic theology text, Robert Reymond laments the fact that most Reformed Christians adhere to the Trinitarian orthodoxy expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.10 He openly calls for an abandonment of the Nicene Trinitarian concept in favor of a different Trinitarian concept. One cannot help but wonder how this is any different than the Unitarians rejection of creedal orthodoxy. They call for the rejection of one aspect of Nicene Trinitarianism while Reymond calls for the rejection of another. Why is one considered heretical and the other published by a major Evangelical publishing house?
An important point that must be kept in mind is observed by the great nineteenth-century Princeton theologian Samuel Miller. He noted that the most zealous opponents of creeds “have been those who held corrupt opinions?”11 This is still the case today. The one common feature found in many published defenses of heretical doctrines aimed at Evangelical readers is the staunch advocacy of the modern Evangelical notion of solo scriptura with its concomitant rejection of the subordinate authority of the ecumenical creeds. The first goal of these authors is to convince the reader that sola scriptura means solo scriptura. In other words, their first goal is to convince readers that there are no binding doctrinal boundaries within Christianity.
In his defense of annihilationism, for example, Edward Fudge states that Scripture “is the only unquestionable or binding source of doctrine on this or any subject?”12 He adds that the individual should weigh the scriptural interpretations of other uninspired and fallible Christians against Scripture.’13 He does not explain how the Christian is to escape his own uninspired fallibility. The doctrinal boundaries of Christian orthodoxy are cast aside as being historically conditioned and relative.14 Of course, Fudge fails to note that his interpretation is as historically conditioned and relative as any that he criticizes.15
Another heresy that has been widely promoted with the assistance of the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is hyper-preterism or pantelism.16 While there are numerous internal squabbles over details, in general advocates of this doctrine insist that Jesus Christ returned in AD. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem and that at that time sin and death were destroyed, the Adamic curse was lifted, Satan was cast into the lake of fire, the rapture and general resurrection occurred, the final judgment occurred, mourning and crying and pain were done away with, and the eternal state began. The proponents of pantelism are even more vocal in their rejection of orthodox Christian doctrinal boundaries than Fudge. Ed Stevens, for example, writes,
Even if the creeds were to clearly and definitively stand against the preterist view (which they don’t), it would not be an over-whelming problem since they have no real authority anyway. They are no more authoritative than our best opinions today, but they are valued because of their antiquity.17
This is a hallmark of the doctrine of solo scriptura, and it is a position that the classical Reformers adamantly rejected. Stevens continues elsewhere,
We must not take the creeds any more seriously than we do the writings and opinions of men like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, Campbell, Rushdoony, or C.S. Lewis.18
Here we see the clear rejection of scripturally based structures of authority. The authority of those who rule in the Church is rejected by placing the decisions of an ecumenical council of ministers on the same level as the words of any individual. This is certainly the democratic way of doing things, and it is as American as apple pie, but it is not Christian. If what Mr. Stevens writes is true, then Christians should not take the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity any more seriously than we take some idiosyncratic doctrine of Alexander Campbell or C.S. Lewis. If this doctrine of solo scriptura and all that it entails is true, then the Church has no more right or authority to declare Arianism a heresy than Cornelius Van Til would have to authoritatively declare classical apologetics a heresy. Orthodoxy and heresy would necessarily be an individualistic and subjective determination.
Another pantelist, John Noe, claims that this rejection of the authority of the ecumenical creeds “is what the doctrine of sola scriptura is all about.”19 As we have demonstrated, this is manifestly untrue of the classical Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura. The doctrine of Scripture being espoused by these men is a doctrine of Scripture that is based upon anabaptistic individualism, Enlightenment rationalism, and democratic populism. It is a doctrine of Scripture divorced from its Christian context. It is no different than the doctrine of Scripture and tradition advocated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in numerous publications such as Should You Believe in the Trinity? in which individuals are urged to reject the ecumenical Christian creeds in favor of a new hermeneutical context.20 Yet the false idea that this doctrine is the Reformation doctrine pervades the thinking of the modern American Evangelical church. Unfortunately the widespread ignorance of the true Reformation doctrine makes it that much easier for purveyors of false doctrine to sway those who have been either unable or unwilling to check the historical facts.
(Please go to the link for the rest of the Authors arguements.)
SUMMARY
Proponents of solo scriptura have deceived themselves into thinking that they honor the unique authority of Scripture. But unfortunately, by divorcing the Spirit-inspired Word of God from the Spirit-indwelt people of God, they have made it into a plaything and the source of endless speculation. If a proponent of solo scriptura is honest, he recognizes that it is not the infallible Scripture to which he ultimately appeals. His appeal is always to his on fallible interpretation of that Scripture. With solo scriptura it cannot be any other way, and this necessary relativistic autonomy is the fatal flaw of solo scriptura that proves it to be an unChristian tradition of men.
(Excerpt) Read more at the-highway.com ...
I am saying the Hebrew Bible does not accept those books as inspired..The Canon of scripture Jesus held in the temple did not include those books.
BTW that OT belongs to the Jews..it was given to the Jews, and only later to the gentiles through Christ..I trust God to keep it from error
You really can't help yourself, can you?,
Being gainfully employed, I frequently can only lurk on these religious discussions. But after years of reading these threads, I can predict with certainty when the discussion will break down: When a small handful of dark-spirited folks who proclaim themselves Christian appear on the scene. You, madam, are one such person. Your posts prove it.
No one who utters unrighteous things will escape notice, and justice, when it punishes, will not pass him by. You can look it up.
"I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family; On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendents and offspring, all the little dishes from bowls to jugs. On that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that humg on it shall be done away with, for the Lord has spoken. Isaiah 22:23-25 NAB, emphasis by me
Respectfully, A_fan (if i may so refer to you, if not my apologies), this does not appear to make your case, and i doubt that a Catholic apologist would quote it.
The action described in Isaiah 22 is not a type. It is simply cited as evidence of the historical fact that the vice-regent of the House of David was given a key (the key of the kingdom) which he wore in a pouch around his neck symbolizing full plenary authority in the king's abscence.
Moreover, the passage demonstrates succession in office. The keys of the kingdom were passed from one vice-regent of the House of David to the next. This office is a type of the Petrine office, the King of the House of David's vice-regent (Peter) and the vice-regent's (or vicar's) successors.
The parallelism between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19 is no accident.
As was mentioned by another poster, the Bereans did not take the apostolic word as absolute, but rather checked them against the written revelation to see if they were true, and apostolic authority commended them for this attitude.
The Scriptures that the Bereans had was the Old Testament. The books of the New Testament would not be canonized for another four hundred years.
Moreover, the Bereans "received the message with great eagerness." The message that they received with great eagerness was an extra-Scriptural message, a message outside and in addition to the Old Testament. The were gladly receiving Apostolic Tradition.
You will find that the same apostolic authority has placed limits upon apostolic authority as follows.
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have recieved, let him be accursed"Galatians 1:6-9, KJV, emphasis by me. Apostolic succession alone, is then meaningless unless consistent with the truths which have been revealed in the scriptures.
"Traditions of men" are bad. But so to is the misuse of Scripture:
2 Peter 3:16The Bible calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)," not Scripture alone. That's why Jesus tells us "if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matt 18:17)He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(Finally, Apostolic tradition provides the context within which the Scriptures can be properly interpreted. There are other Traditions that cannot be derived definitively from Scripture like the facts of Original Sin and prohibitions against polygamy. One can derive from Scripture that marriage between one man and one woman is desirable, but one cannot find an explicit prohibition against polygamy. Luther admitted as much and even told a prince that he could find nothing in Scripture prohibiting polygamy.)
The story is much more complex than that. Interestingly enough, the reverse is true:
The Canon of the Old Testament
• The canon of Scripture.
• The identity of the authors of the books of the New Testament.
• The teaching that divine revelation is closed with the death of the last Apostle.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, on Apostolic Tradition.
These appear to be the claims verbatim of Dr. Sam Gipp, which have been seen elsewhere on FR and on the Net. I've seen the information he presented,along with the facts correcting his assertions previously on FR and elsewhere. I'll see if I can find them.
There are Jewish freepers that will tell you the cannon was actually closed before Christ ( having had this discussion before)
The bereans indeed did serch the scriptures to see if what they were hearing was consistant with the revelation of the person of God given them in the Hebrew bible...and the message they recieved with great joy was found as were all of the teachings of Jesus IN the OT ..they saw not "extra scripitual "teachings ..but as the elect of God they saw the consistancy and fulfillment of those scriptures..
I have only limited time to respond because I have to put an alternator in my wife's car. (230 bucks for an alternator- what a rip off.)
What you said is exactly the problem. OTHER There is no OTHER Apostolic tradition. You mistake the traditionalism of the RCC for the absolute Apostolic Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition and the rule of Faith is nothing more than the Apostolic Creed set out as the core beliefs of Christianity. Here's what Tertullian calls the rule of Faith which is basically a rearticulation of the Apostles Creed:
Now, with regard to this rule of faith -- that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend -- it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen "in diverse manners" by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.
Funny, no mention of any eccelestical matters. No phony, man-made traditionalism. Just the pure gospel as spelled out in scripture. You need to take seriously what my Lord says:
"For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men. . . . All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. . . making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down" (Mark 7:8, 9, 13).
Of course some have "errors". They were not meant to be geography and history books, but pious stories. The Gospels do not have identicial stories about the birth of Jesus Christ - they compliment each other. You don't think that the Gospels are errant, do you?
You Cited a Catholic Church Father but ignored other Catholic Church Fathers I posted that contradict your assertions
"No phony, man-made traditions..."
Cite ONE Catholic Church Father stating what they describe as Tradition are man made inventions....
Cite ONE Catholic Church Father saying "the Christian Church Teaches error and will teach error until some latter-day-saints, 16 Centuries later, are to be born to tell everyone else what the REAL truth is."
Cite ONE Catholic Church Father who says "We REALLY don't know what they heck we are talking about, so be careful because for the next 1600 years, you will all be following our manmade lies and you will end up in Hell for following manmade fables, but, be patient, and wait until God raises up some heretics who, although they will disagree with one another, can be relied upon to tell their followers what we Early Catholic Church Fathers REALLY mean. As for all those hundreds of millions who will be condemened to Hell for following the Teachings of an apostate Church, tough luck, them's the breaks, that is all part of God's soverign Will...deal with it."
Get real...<>
<> That is a proposition he willing assents to only becuase he FIRST accepted the New Testament.on the authority of the Church.
The Mass, confession, Real Presence in the Eucharist, Fasting, Baptism, Bishopric ect etc can all be proved; but, he and his ilk reject some or part of that Tradition DESPITE the fact the self same authorities can be appealed to
What WOULD be remarkable is to witness one accepting authority even when it OPPOSES their own personal opinions<>
"We do not take our scriptural teaching from the parables but we interpret the parables according to our TEACHING" Purity 9,1
"Let them show the origins of their churches, let them unroll the list of their Bishops (showing) through a succession coming down from the very beginning that their first Bishop had his authority and predecessor someone from among the number of Apostles or apostolic men and, further, that he did not stray from the Apostles. In this way the apostolic churches present their earliest records. The church of Smyrna, for example, records that Polycarp was named by John; the Romans, that Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way, the other churches show who were made Bishops by the Apostles and who transmitted the apostolic seed to them. Let the heretics invent something like that" De praescr haeret 32
<> Using Tertullian as your authority, as you do, show me the Apostolic Sucession leading to Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, ect ect<>
The action described in Isaiah 22 is not a type. It is simply cited as evidence of the historical fact that the vice-regent of the House of David was given a key (the key of the kingdom) which he wore in a pouch around his neck symbolizing full plenary authority in the king's absence.
The passage in fact deals with God removing one vice-regent for another. The king in question here is Hezekiah, King of Judah. You will note that in chapter 36, the king is not absent, and the kingdom is being invaded. The vice-regent is not acting without direct instruction from both the king and the Prophet. None the less, we are in agreement so far
Moreover, the passage demonstrates succession in office. The keys of the kingdom were passed from one vice-regant of the House of David to the next. This office is a type of the Petrine office, the King of the House of David's vice-regent (Peter) and the vice-regent's (or vicar's) sucessors.
It is here that you take away. The action is not a type, but the the office is. Sounds as if it is a rather fractured hermenutic. It begs the question by what standard does one interpret the first clause as not a type, and the second clause as a type? There are other interpretations within the passage possible, namely the peg that was being broken off was Peter, (although it is not one i personally accept). Furthermore, this authority presumes that the King is absent. This would be contrary to the words of Christ in many passages of Scripture, especially since Christ himself speaks to the Church at Philadelphia that He holds the key (Revelation 3:7).
The Scriptures that the Bereans had sas the Old Testament. The books of the New Testament would not be canonized for another four hundred years.
Again forgive me, but this is not really germane to the point made, namely that scripture was consulted to verify the word of the Apostle. Earlier in the passage, Paul's method is described as reasoning from the scriptures. In particular, see Acts 17:2-3. Since the audience included devout Greeks, there is no reason that Paul would have acted differently among the Bereans.
Something else is implicit from this passage as well. For Paul and the Bereans to agree there must have been a common hermenutic, or a system of interpretation that all agreed upon.
The structure of Acts 17:11 is interesting. The word for searched is a present active participle of the word antikrinw, which means "To sift; to examine closely,...To scrutinise, scan,...to try judicially,... to judge, give judgement upon,...to put questions, be inquisitive,...
(Moulton, Analytical Greek Lexicon, elipses are where individual scripture citations are placed).
As alluded to above the form of the verb is a present active participle, masculine plural. The time in the participle is relative to the main verb in the clause (recieved), present being contemporaneous with the time frame of the main verb. You may check this with what ever Greek Grammar you wish. This would mitigate against the notion that extra-scriptural revelation was recieved unless it were in complience with what already existed.
There is some dispute over whether or not the writings of Paul were in the process of being considered inspired. The passage in 2 Peter that you quote omits verse 15 in which it is made clear that Peter is speaking of the writings of Paul, and the whole discussion hinges on what phrase "other scriptures" mean.
The ITimothy 3 passage is quoted out of context. Perhaps you should have included verse 14
These things write I unto theee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God. which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. I Timothy 3:14-15 KJV.
The context here is clearly writing, and written instruction.
Finally, original sin can be derived from scripture, Refer to Hebrews 7:9-10, if Levi paid a tith in Abraham, i sinned in Adam.
Btw A_fan, is it the standard proceedure that these posts seem to get longer and longer?? It is a wonder we don't all have carpal tunnel! :~)
"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE...
"The epistle begins thus: 'Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.' Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manicheus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, 'An Apostle of Christ.' I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For MY PART, I should NOT BELIEVE THE GOSPEL EXCEPT MOVED BY THE AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?"
C. Epis Mani 5,6
"Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical Scriptures is not brought forward for it" Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis
"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you" C. Cresconius 1,33
"It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true" Sermon 117,6
"If therefore, I am going to believe things I do not know about, why should I not believe those things which are accepted by the common consent of learned and unlearned alike and are established by most weighty authority of all peoples?" C. Letter Called Fundamentals 14,18
"Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will separate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved..." C. Julian 1,7,34
"The authority of our Scriptures, strengthened by the consent of so many nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, Bishops and Councils, is against you" C. Faustus 8,5
"No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH" Trinitas 4,6,10
<> Let's see, Jesus established His Catholic Church....The Catholic Church Fathers attest to that...the Catholic Church writes every single word of the N.T....incomparable Saints like St. Augustine reveal themselves as Catholics, not Calvinists...this continues for more'n 1500 years and I am supposed to REJECT all of this because some 16th Century Heretics say I should? Puhlllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezeee<>
It's 10 degrees out there i think I'll wait a while. :)
I don't think you've laid hold of the difference between the Apostolic Tradition and traditionalism.
The Apostolic Tradition is the core set of beliefs of the Christian Faith.
RCC traditionalism is the practices of the church.
The RCC at the council of Trent, and reaffirmed by Vatican II, placed traditionalism on equal footing with the Apostolic Tradition. It is clear that man-made traditionalism has equal or greater value than the core beliefs of Christianity.
You Cited a Catholic Church Father but ignored other Catholic Church Fathers I posted that contradict your assertions.
I cite the catholic Church Fathers as the objective way in which we are to proceed with scriptural interpretation not as you cite them as inherently scriptural. Of course you can not hold to a consistent agreement with all the Church Fathers because of their various disagreements. That is why sola scriptura is important. If a practice or belief does not conform to the absolute Apostolic Tradition then that practice or belief must be rejected. The only tradition that can be accepted are those that were handed down directly by the Apostles. Any additional practices or beliefs outside those handed down by the Apostles are heresy. Therefore, I judge all Christian writers, past, present, and future on the basis of how they conform to the hermeneutical presuppositions set forth by the Apostles. There is not even a hint within the strict rule of Faith about works or sacraments being salvic.
You better get real and listen to the words of my Lord:
"For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men. . . . All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep you tradition. . . making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down" (Mark 7:8, 9, 13).
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.