A critique of the evangelical doctrine of solo scriptura

The Highway ^ | Keith Mathison

[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<>

What does this have to do with post 236?

[Joshua]

"<> You claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit when you read the words of the New Testament that the Catholic Church wrote. "

You're kidding, right?

[Joshua]

"How's things in your Cult? Do you serve Kool Aid?:)<> "

Don't you watch TV? The old commercial said "Kool Aid is for kids".

That would make your priests more apt to serve Kool Aid than my denomination.

I would bet the Boston Diocese buys it in bulk.

[Tantumergo]

FYI

St Gregory of Nyssa's teachings are also to be found in the Latin Breviary - particularly the Office of Readings.

Similarly all major eastern saints and theologians (prior to 1054) are found in the Latin Liturgy. Most recent were St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory Nazianzen on 2nd January. Basil was of course the brother of Gregory of Nyssa.

BTW - MarMema

Do you guys consider the North African fathers to be Eastern or Western?

Obviously St Augustine of Hippo was a Latin, but surely the Fathers of the Alexandrian school (St. Cyril et al) must have been mainly Greeks?

[Tantumergo]

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

Are y-u implying that J-s-s Chr-st was m-rried?

[Tantumergo]

"All roads lead to Rome!"

All the hard and narrow ones do! :)

[Domestic Church]

"pretty much ignored in the RC church, I believe."

The name of St Gregory of Nyssa is known to a practicing Catholic.

[Domestic Church]

"Whether James is agreeing or supporting Peters words is not important. The context of the verse shows that James, not Peter had the authority to make the final decision."

I disagree. I think it is very, very important and I still think Peter had the final authority.

[Domestic Church]

Incidently, when we were picking out saints names for our children and posting them on the fridge to mull over, St. Gregory was on the boys list over and over again.

[Domestic Church]

"I think it is one thing to strive for unity in the Church and another to make tradition (small "t") co-salvic with Faith."

Catholicism doesn't make small t tradition co-salvic with Faith.

[lockeliberty]

The RCC version certainly does, does it not?

[Joshua]

"I disagree. I think it is very, very important and I still think Peter had the final authority."

The verse shows in this instance the James was the final authority.

I knew you would disagree, you have no choice.

What good RC is going to let biblical proof destroy 2000 years of RCC heresy?

You go as far as to deny the obvious and insist that's not what it says.

You do Rome proud. If I were you I would insist on a Gold Star, blessed by your local Bishop, and display it proudly on on your forehead as your badge of honor in defending the faith.

[Domestic Church]

"The pastor or priest cannot forgive my sins. Only Christ can forgive."

Exactly...it isn't the priest who gives forgiveness in the Sacrament of Penance. Unless you fundamentally understand the extraordinary, mystical nature of sacramental life to the Catholic you cannot understand why it is so important to us and even if you cannot agree with this aspect of our faith at least have sensitivity in trying to understand the sacredness and reverence in which we hold the sacraments as that is where the pomp and procession and formal prayer came in.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Regretably, it seems as if we are talking past each other. This makes it evident that a common hermenutic is not a moot point for either you and i, or Paul and his hearers. We have operating here, two different frames of reference for scriptural interpretation, you with the framework of the Roman Magisteria, and me with a Sola Scriptura framework. In my humble opinion, the futility lies in the fact that you are presuming a Magisteria framework in order to prove a Magisteria (Magesteria ?) framework. To relate this to something we can both understand, it is like a Protestant presuming an inspired bible to prove an inspired bible to a skeptic. Is it not more logically consistent to attempt to argue a Roman framework by proving it from a sola Scriptura framework?

While there are common conclusions that can be reached by either framework, (Original sin, which you did not have to type since Protestants belive it and can derive the doctrine from a Sola Scriptura framework, and numerous Creeds that even in Protestant circles are called the "catholic" creeds...= universal creeds). i will now respond to your post within that sola scriptura framework.

Secondly, I take this historical office to be a type for a superior office to a superior Davidic King. Old Testament Davidic Kings who held the keys to the House of David are types for the superior New Testament King of the House of David who holds the keys to the House of David.

i am not certain what you meant here but i will examine it as written by you (please let me know if you misstated, it does not seem consistent with your usually consistent argumentation). We are told several things in the Isaiah 22 citation.
1)Eliakim will replace Shebna in office. (vs.15-20)
2)He (Eliakim) will be clothed with the robe, girdle, and government will be committed unto his hand.(vs.21)
3)He (Eliakim) shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. (vs.21)
4)The key to the House of David is laid upon his (Eliakim) sholder.
5)He shall open, none shall shut; he shall shut, none shall open. (vs.22)
6)God will fasten him (Eliakim)as a nail in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne in his father's house (vs.23)
7)God will hang all the glory of of his (Eliakim) father's house on him, the offspring, the issue, all vessels (large and small).(vs.24)
8)In that day, the nail that is fastened in the sure place will be removed (Eliakim), and the burdon that was upon him (see #7 above) will be cut off. (vs. 25)

Now i must ask, do you see this as a type of Peter, or a type of Christ, or both, or neither? (i will not insult your intelligence by offering you a false alternative falacy). If Christ, it is consistent with the Glory and burdons being placed upon him. If Peter, the same would be difficult to explain, as no one believed that Peter bore the burdons and Glory of the House of David, at least i have never heard of such a teaching in Catholicism. A further problem is just what is being cut off, the office, or the man? (neither or both are implied in my question, i don't like to type either :~)) Might this suggest that the office of vice-regent has ceased? The context of the passage certainly suggests this. i await an explanation, take your time, i certainly did. In light of this, i will postpone discussion of Revelation 3:7 since it hinges on your response.

i will now move on to your discussion of Matthew 16:19

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

i don't know what kind of knowlege of the Greek language you have but the structure for the phrases "will be bound/loosed" is called the periphrastic perfect. (as opposed to my spelling which is periphrastic imperfect :~)) The short of it is that the structure is better rendered will have been bound/loosed. This speaks of Peter ratifying what heaven has determined to be the judgement of the matter. So far, i don't believe in this instance that i have countered Catholic teaching on this matter.

Now, my question is: Is this proclamation exclusive to Peter? i turn now to the Matthew 18 passage that you quoted.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear tnem, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matthew 18:15-20 KJV, emphasis by me.

As per the underlined sections in this scripture, the subject of bind and loosed is plural. While undoutably Peter is among the disciples, it refers to all of them. This makes it doubtful that the binding and loosing provision or ratification (this structure is also a periphrastic perfect)is exclusive to Peter. In point of fact, it does not appear from the context of verses 19 and 20 that this binding and loosing is limited to the apostles, rather it is given to all believers.

I will move now to your question concerning I Timothy 3:15.

These things write I unto thee, 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. ITimothy 3:14-15 KJV.

i have no problem with your assertion, backed by this scripture that the church is the Pillar and ground of the truth. What i am wondering is why you would think this a reference to the church at Rome? This is a letter to Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus. There is no mention of the Church at Rome in this passage, or in the chapter, or even in the letter, and this i think is yet another source of misunderstanding caused by different interpretive frameworks.

It seems to me as if when the word "church" is spoken, that Catholics think something like "Roman Catholic Church". If so, it does not follow from the New Testament. It seems that the Roman Catholic needs to demonstrate from the Scriptures that:
1)The church of Rome exists. (easy enough to do, since Paul wrote an epistle to them!)
2)That the office of "keeper of the keys" continues to this day.
3)That the suceeding bishops of Rome were given the office of keeper of the keys as were Peter and the rest of the Disciples.(discussed above)
4)That these succeeding Roman bishops were given any authority over any other see in the New Testament.
5)That there is any warrent in the New Testament for the Preeminence of the Roman Church.
6)That the Roman Church was to excercise authority over any other New Testament Church founded by the apostles or their successors.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but these will do for now.

It seems to me as if we have questions to resolve before we can begin to settle the question of proper interpretation of the scriptures. Personally i am happy that although some on both sides of this thread have been a bit testy, you have not been so to me, and neither has any other supporter of the Roman position to the best of my recollection. i thank you for sticking to the issues and attempting to answer honestly and clearly. May God grant me the grace to do likewise.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>"Were any men in Judaism required to remain unmarried ?????"

Are y-u implying that J-s-s Chr-st was m-rried?


245 posted on 01/08/2003 4:29 PM MST by Tantumergo

NO nor am I stating such.

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>

[gdebrae]

Unless you fundamentally understand the extraordinary, mystical nature of sacramental life to the Catholic you cannot understand why it is so important to us and even if you cannot agree with this aspect of our faith at least have sensitivity in trying to understand the sacredness and reverence in which we hold the sacraments as that is where the pomp and procession and formal prayer came in.

Although I do not understand and cannot agree with the above I am concerned to have sensitivity to anyone with genuine faith in Christ as well as those seeking to learn more. My problem is that in most denominations, tradition often becomes more important than scripture. I think that is a normal human tendency. I heard one pastor say something to the effect that usually our tradition doesn't go back far enough. Ususally back to the way our parents or grandparents did something or perhaps some event in history. But the true tradition goes all the way back to scripture.

I have learned from personally experience that it is safer to distort scripture than try to change people's religious traditions.

I grew up in a religious environment that took very seriously the sacraments of baptism and communion. But the sacraments are not ends in themselves but means pointing to Christ and the one sacrifice on the cross.

What I find central in Scripture is the centrality of Christ and his authority exercised through the work of the Holy Spirit and the word of the Gospel message. I do not think it is biblical to cover this with layers of tradition, pomp, ceremony or visual aids as though Christ needs all the help we can give him.

I am not arguing for individualistic intepretation of scripture. But I am deeply convinced that Christ by his Holy Spirit will, as he promised, lead belivers in the truth of his word so that they will, as Peter encourages, continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

It is not any personal human authority that comforts me, but Christ himself through his Word of truth. II Corinthians 1:3-7

[saradippity]

Maybe you could understand what conceivably happened with Peter and James at that meeting if you compared it with a College Faculty meeting that the College President was attending.

Does it seem reasonable that the President would take the gavel and bring the meeting to order or conclude the meeting by telling the secretary "let the minutes reflect---blah,blah".

I believe that the Faculty has something akin to Robert's Rules of Order and the Apostle's had similar protocols.

[Iowegian]

I answered as follows:

Yes, I read it the first time. It wasn't an answer to what I asked, but it was what you wanted to say. Kind of like the answers politicians give. Much bluster, no substance.

[Joshua]

"Maybe you could understand what conceivably happened with Peter and James at that meeting if you compared it with a College Faculty meeting that the College President was attending."

Maybe it was a college sorority meeting and James had final say on who gets to wear the Togas at the beer blast.

Maybe you should get yourself a good concordance, look up the word judgment/rule or whatever your version says, and apply it to James in this verse.

"Does it seem reasonable that the President would take the gavel and bring the meeting to order or conclude the meeting by telling the secretary "let the minutes reflect---blah,blah"."

No. It sounds like a meeting where the leader listens to everyones point and then makes a final decision as the one with authority.

Read it, look up the word, and stop trying to twist it into a pretzel to fit the RCC's teaching with all these what ifs?

[saradippity]

How edifying!!