Posted on 01/06/2003 8:09:14 AM PST by lockeliberty
Some day, on another topic, I will show how the Holy Spirit led him to make this mistake in selecting this on which to build his case:) The facts about the issue PROVE Papal Primacy. But, that is for another day, another time<>
Isaiah22:22, Matthew 16:19 and then the history of papal succession.
So the 7 churches are actually 7 countries and Jesus is speaking to all the people in those countries? Holy Cow, who taught you that? Oh yea, the Catholic Church. Let's just forget the fact that Jesus is speaking only to believers. Let's put our head in the sand and believe Jesus is only talking about countries that way I don't have to take personal responsibility. As long as I take my sacraments and say my "hail Marys", I'm safe.
hiyiyi
Who chooses the most important points and by what authority?
we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.
Who is "we" and by what authority do they approve the "intention of those writings"?
Additionally, these statements do not necessarily support the notion of "scripture alone" which is really a sixteenth century innovation. Implicit in these commendations of Scripture are the following assumptions:
•The Church created, preserved, and canonized Scripture.
•The Church is the definitive authority regarding the interpretation of Scripture.
•The Church upholds Scripture and thereby upholds the idea that the Spirit would guide the Church into all truth, that the Deposit of Faith included Scripture and Tradition and that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth."
Was that given only to the officers of a newly formed Corporation or was it given to all followers of the Christ ???
Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour!
chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
Nevertheless, that does not mean His Christian Catholic Church failed anymore than does the selction of Judas render St. John nugatory...sheesh
I will note that as is usual in these exchanges, your side can only accuse and assert. There is NO support for your 16th Century Heresiarchs in the New Testament or the Earky Church Fathers.
There is NO evidence to suggest Jesus would establish a church that would teach error for thousands of generations and years.
Merely on the face of it, it is an evil sugggestion. It certainly isn't proveable.
But, I guess we are just supposed to accept such evil notions and quit the true Church.
There is an endless stream of evidence that individuals and communites would go awry and become heretcial and schismatic...that is right in the New Testament the Catholic Church wrote. But, there is no evidence to suggest what it is you must accept to justify YOPIOS<>
The author is making a distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. His point is that the Reformers did not reject the Apostolic tradition strictly held. The Reformers believed that the core beliefs, and only those core beliefs, were the lens in which we interpret scripture. This was because the Roman Catholic Church had replaced the Apostolic Tradition for traditionalism. Rick Wade comments:
In the 14th century tradition became a separate source of truth when it was realized that some traditions couldn't be proved from Scripture. There were now, then, two sources of revelation--Scripture and Church--tradition, rather than one source in two forms. What the Reformers wanted to do was not to pit Scripture against tradition per se and throw out the latter. They wanted to let go of man-made traditions and go back to the true apostolic tradition. "The sixteenth-century Reformers were cognizant of this distinction and highly valued the Tradition located in the Fathers as a means of interpreting biblical truth. . . . The Reformation was not about Scripture versus tradition but about reclaiming the ancient Tradition against distortions of that Tradition, or what eventually became a conflict of Tradition versus traditions."{19} They wanted to avoid citing the church fathers as authorities for doctrines or practices, which were incongruent with Scripture. They rejected the idea that the ancient Tradition had become secondary to the traditions of medieval Catholicism. Tradition with a small "t" had begun to interpret Tradition with a capital "T"; the Reformers thus emphasized Scripture as delivering true apostolic Tradition to argue against Rome's claim to authority.
The modern Evangelical, OTOH, wishes to remove all 'man-made' traditions. What they fail to realize is that the oral traditions handed down by the Apostles gave the church the core beliefs as an objective standard by which they could objectively evaluate those beliefs. Primarly this was done so that a person could come to an objective belief against the subjective 'special knowledge' of the Gnostics. If we remove the 'lens' of the creeds, as many Evangelicals do, the ability to interpret scripture becomes relavistic depending upon subjective criteria of their own personal understandings.
If these keys gave the authority to Peter why do these following verses show James as having the final say?
" Acts 15:1-2 1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. (NIV)
Acts 15:6 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. (NIV)
Acts 15:7-8 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. (NIV)
Acts 15:13 13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. (NIV)
Acts 15:19 19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. (NIV)
"
After Peter spoke James made the final decision. The word 'judgement' in verse 19 means authority to govern or rule. Why James instead of Peter?
Either the catholic church is wrong on this, or Peter never read his catechism to see how much power the catholics gave to him.
Which is it?
Calling someone who doesn't share your views "separated" is a bigoted statement.
Because we don't parrot the heresy from Rome and wear it like a badge of honor, challenge you to verify your tradition with scripture,and take you to task when you can't , we are bigots.
Have mercy on us Holy and Enlightened One!
<652> avpo,stoloj (apostolos)
Meaning: a messenger, one sent on a mission, an apostle
Origin: from 649
Usage: apostle(18), Apostle(1), apostles(52), apostles'(5), messenger(m)(1), messengers(m)(1),one who is sent(1).
Notes: (1) Lit., a called apostle (a) 1Co 1:1; 1Co 9:1; 2Co 1:1 (b) Act 9:15; Act 13:2; Gal 1:15 (c) Mar 1:14; Rom 15:16
Bishops
<1984> evpiskoph, (episkope)
Meaning: a visiting, an overseeing
Origin: from 1980a
Usage: office(m)(1), office of overseer(1) visitation(2).
Notes: (1) Or, bishop (a) 1Ti 1:15 (b) Act 20:28; Phi 1:1
Before they were infilled with the Holy Spirit, they were disciples ( followers) of the Christ
After the Holy Spirit infilled them they were sent(Apostles) as messenger to visit(Bishops) .
Here are some of the attributes of an Overseer (Bishop).
1 Timothy 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being
an overseer, [Traditionally bishop; also in verse 2] he desires a noble task.
1 Timothy 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of
but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 Timothy 3:3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
1 Timothy 3:4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect.
1 Timothy 3:5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
Are your Bishops Married with children ??
chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
As David King has pointed out in "Holy Scripture Vol 1" there are only three places where the Greek word translated "tradition" is used in a positive connotation in the NT:
1 Cor 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.Note that in all three cases the verb associated with delivering the "traditions" is in the past tense. David King correctly points out that these passages do not support the idea of an ongoing body or oral tradition. The traditions described here became the Scriptures!2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.[NAS95] Emphasis mine
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.