Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A critique of the evangelical doctrine of solo scriptura
The Highway ^ | Keith Mathison

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 ...


TOPICS: History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-314 next last
To: Aquinasfan
Are your Bishops Married with children ??

The passage doesn't say that Bishops must be married. The point is that if a Bishop is married he cannot have been divorced and his family must be exemplary.

Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself when he states elsewhere that it is better for men to remain unmarried:


I Corinthians 7
"I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."


If Paul was prescribing marriage for bishops he would also be contradicting Jesus:

Matthew 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[ 19:12 Or have made themselves eunuchs] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

201 posted on 01/08/2003 7:56 AM MST by Aquinasfan

Was the Christ, Jesus a Roman Catholic?

Was the Christ, Jesus a Catholic?

Was the Christ, Jesus a catholic?

Was the Christ, Jesus a Jew?

Was the Christ, Jesus a Jewish Rabbi?

Were any men in Judaism required to remain unmarried ?

Were any men in Judaism required to become a Eunuch ?

19:12 ...Or have made themselves eunuchs] because of the kingdom of heaven.


Is Y'shua HaMashiach encouraging a man to make himself a eunuch ? Either figuratively or literally ?

Surely Rabbi Y'shua would have known Deuteronomy :

Deuteronomy 23:1 No-one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting
may enter the assembly of the LORD.

Why? Because many Pagan religions castrated their priests.

Are your Bishops Married with children ??

Matthew 23:39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say,
Barukh haba b'Shem Adonai
`Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" [Psalm 118:26]
Y'shua haMashiach

chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>

221 posted on 01/08/2003 9:14:44 AM PST by Uri’el-2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
<> OK, I'll save ya some time.

I am well aware of all these texts. But that still does not address the fact that such persons do not have a spiritual authority that elevates them above other believers. The pastor or priest cannot forgive my sins. Only Christ can forgive. The pastor of priest can refer to scripture to provide assurance of that fact, but they in themselves have no spiritual authority to forgive anybody. Neither does the pope or any cardinal.

The pomp, procession, wealth and power of the roman church are all contrary to NT teaching. That one person is set over the church in a way that no one else is, is contrary to the fact that the church has only one head and that is Christ.

222 posted on 01/08/2003 9:24:08 AM PST by gdebrae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: MarMema; Catholicguy
MarMema

<> Prove it.

Put up or shut up,sister.<>

191 posted on 01/08/2003 7:53 AM EST by Catholicguy [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

<> You have had nearly four hours...I am still waiting :)<>


220 posted on 01/08/2003 10:12 AM MST by Catholicguy

1 Timothy 1:5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure
heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
1 Timothy 1:6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.
1 Timothy 1:7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know
what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
1 Timothy 1:8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.

chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>

223 posted on 01/08/2003 9:25:58 AM PST by Uri’el-2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty
Probably if you want to learn what the church believes, it would be best to read official church sites, rather than personal ones. here is a good place to read about our faith. That said you won't find a doctrine of salvation in our church as we do not have one.

Salvation is left up to each individual person and is between them and God. As is the growth of each person in Christ. The church offers guidance and assistance but each person is expected to come to know God. We are, above all, experiental Christians.

Click on my FR page and choose the link about The Eastern Christian Mind to learn more about how eastern Christianity differs from the west.

224 posted on 01/08/2003 9:29:01 AM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
<> G - - d L - rd.Y-u think y-u are G-d?

G--d luck explaining that -ne

<> Buh, bye. Y-u have acheived(sic) permanent ign-resville<>

217 posted on 01/08/2003 9:40 AM MST by Catholicguy

I remember the Bullies in the play ground,

Whenever they lost the argument they would call you names.


But I still love you. The L-rd commands that I must love you.

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbour [Lev. 19:18] and hate your enemy.’
Matthew 5:44
But I tell you: Love your enemies [Some late manuscripts
enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who
hate you]
and pray for those who persecute you,
Matthew 5:45
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his
sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>

225 posted on 01/08/2003 9:39:55 AM PST by Uri’el-2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Yours are some truly beautiful posts. Thank you for them.
226 posted on 01/08/2003 9:43:23 AM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: gdebrae
21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

<> I can't figure out which parts of the Bible you do believe in, and why>

I guess it must be YOPIOS. Have a nice day:)

227 posted on 01/08/2003 10:08:30 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: gdebrae
21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

<> I can't figure out which parts of the Bible you do believe in, and why

I guess it must be YOPIOS. Have a nice day:)<>

228 posted on 01/08/2003 10:08:53 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Loved in the Eastern Orthodox church, pretty much ignored in the RC church, I believe.

Your belief is wrong here.

...he is not a likely candidate for the RC church to hold on high.

I hate these threads and find them worthless because of stupid accusations such as this. Why does the Catholic Church celebrate his feast day then? Please, everybody, give information about your own Churches and beliefs for enlightened discussion, but don't falsely accuse others of holding or not holding beliefs, or in this case, not giving due respect for a venerable Church Father. This is not true!

In our liturgy we say of the Trinity, "One in essence and undivided".

This is part of the Catholic Liturgy as well. FYI.

229 posted on 01/08/2003 10:20:59 AM PST by TotusTuus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: TotusTuus
Please forgive me for my error.
Is there a copy of your liturgy on a website somewhere that I can read?
230 posted on 01/08/2003 10:27:49 AM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Is there a copy of your liturgy on a website somewhere that I can read?

I'll look for one, I'm breaking to go to Mass now. However, the Liturgy I'm referring to is the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, which are of the Eastern Rites, and essentially the same as that used by many Eastern Orthodox sharing the same history.

231 posted on 01/08/2003 10:33:14 AM PST by TotusTuus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
What is your interpretation of these Bible passages? A direct answer would be appreciated.
I Corinthians 7

"I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."

Matthew 19:12

For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[ 19:12 Or have made themselves eunuchs] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

My interpretation and the Church's interpretation is that men to whom the gift of lifetime chastity is given should accept it.
232 posted on 01/08/2003 10:38:51 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
All roads lead to Rome!
233 posted on 01/08/2003 10:40:42 AM PST by RichardMoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty
John 10:16

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

John 17:11

I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name; the name you gave me;so that they may be one as we are one.

John 21

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." 17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." 18 Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

Isaiah 22

22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Matthew 16

18And I tell you that you are Peter,[3] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[4] will not overcome it.[5]19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[1] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[2] loosed in heaven."

John 6

67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. 68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

Matthew 14

27But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." 28"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." 29"Come," he said. 30Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"

Acts 1

15In those days Peter stood up among the believers[3] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus-- 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."

Acts 2

14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.

234 posted on 01/08/2003 11:06:47 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
What is your interpretation of these Bible passages? A direct answer would be appreciated.

I Corinthians 7
"I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."

Matthew 19:12

For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[ 19:12 Or have made themselves eunuchs] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

My interpretation and the Church's interpretation is that men to whom the gift of lifetime chastity is given should accept it.

232 posted on 01/08/2003 11:38 AM MST by Aquinasfan

I would have thought that if you had answered my questions you would have been led to question the Roman church's exegesis.

Again answer these questions thoughtfully and reflect on your answers.

Was the Christ, Jesus a Roman Catholic?????

Was the Christ, Jesus a Catholic?????

Was the Christ, Jesus a catholic?????

Was the Christ, Jesus a Jew?????

Was the Christ, Jesus a Jewish Rabbi?????

Did He preach from the Law (Torah) ?????


Were any men in Judaism required to remain unmarried ?????

Were any men in Judaism required to become a Eunuch ?????


AF>19:12 ...Or have made themselves eunuchs] because of the kingdom of heaven.


Is Y'shua HaMashiach encouraging a man to make himself a eunuch ?????
Either figuratively or literally ?????

Surely Rabbi Y'shua would have known Deuteronomy :

Deuteronomy 23:1 No-one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting
may enter the assembly of the LORD.

Why? Because many Pagan religions castrated their priests.

Are your Bishops Married with children ?????


I think my answers to your questions are clear from the Holy Word of G-d.

or

is my logic faulty ?

My interpretation and the Church's interpretation is that men to whom the gift of lifetime chastity is given should accept it.

I think not ;only if you follow Eisegesis.

Jesus the Christ when He modified anything from the Old Covenant, He was very clear by stating the Old followed by the New.

I don't see that here or anywhere else in the Holy Word of G-d on this topic; do you ?

I do not find the "gift of lifetime chastity" listed anywhere in the Holy Word of G-d.

I have searched all of the Gifts we have received and the "gift of lifetime chastity" does not seem to among them.

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the
Thessalonians, for they received the message with great
eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if
what Paul said was true.

chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>

235 posted on 01/08/2003 11:26:00 AM PST by Uri’el-2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

This means of course that sins were forgiven in the name of Peter, or of Paul, or of James, or of John. If Peter forgives my sins then he is my righteousness. Or if Paul forgives my sins, then he is my righteousness. Or if catholicguy forgives my sins then you are my righteousness.

Interesting concept.

236 posted on 01/08/2003 12:12:04 PM PST by gdebrae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Thanks for the scripture.

Question: If I were to choose to worship traditionalism what objective criteria could you give me to choose Rome over the Orthodox version since both claim Apostolic succession?
237 posted on 01/08/2003 12:20:29 PM PST by lockeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: gdebrae
<> Prove to me your are an inheritor of an Apostlolic Office. Who was the Catholic Bishop who Ordained you? Prove your line of Apostloic sucession<>
238 posted on 01/08/2003 12:26:20 PM PST by Catholicguy (That is how the early Christians established authority.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty
Question: If I were to choose to worship traditionalism what objective criteria could you give me to choose Rome over the Orthodox version since both claim Apostolic succession?

I think the most obvious evidence is the papacy and the unbroken papal succession from Peter through the current pope. If Christ really established the office of a supreme bishop then only the Catholic Church can be Christ's Church.

The papacy unifies Christendom. This is no small point since Jesus states plainly in Scripture his desire that his flock be one and united.

The Orthodox churches as far as I know regard all patriarchs as equal. Therefore the churches have become somewhat autonomous, most importantly with respect to the matter of settling doctrinal matters. This is important since Jesus tells us to take our disputes "to the church." Theoretically, a Church Council could settle doctrinal disputes, but no single bishop can call together a Council and I am unaware of any recent Councils in the Orthodox churches. The prospect of a Council in the Orthodox churches in the near future also seems to be pretty slim.

While the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the patriarchs of the Orthodox churches and the validity of their sacraments, we regard the Orthodox churches as schismatic inasmuch as they do not recognize papal authority. Otherwise, there is substantial doctrinal agreement between both the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

239 posted on 01/08/2003 12:49:12 PM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Boy, I found a bunch of them, mostly from Orthodox Churches. Here's one from the Catholics. Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. They're all pretty much the same though sometimes minor translation difference occur. Sometimes "essence" is translated as "substance". Also, the decree of the Metropolitan Bishop for the Byzantine (Slavonic) Rite in America has the "and the Son" (filioque controversy) taken out of the Creed, which it has always been optional. Also, some retain "Theotokos" which others translate as "Mother of our God" or "Mother of God".
240 posted on 01/08/2003 1:53:29 PM PST by TotusTuus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-314 next last

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.

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