Posted on 01/26/2005 8:45:26 AM PST by tvn
I have no tradition. I just believe the Word.
There is only one sin that leads to death- blaspheming the Holy Spirit by denying Jesus is Lord. Jesus said so Himself. In God's eyes there is no difference between sin- if you die without being saved you go to hell even if you have committed only one sin.
To God murder=adultery=stealing. What John is saying is that no sin leads to death unless you're not saved by the blood of Jesus.
Jesus is speaking of those not saved and/or those still under the Law. There is no judgement for those that are saved- we've already passed from death to life. The price has been paid for our sin by Jesus's death. The only time believers will face the judgement seat is when rewards are given in heaven- NOT for sins we've committed.
The thief on the cross was awarded heaven just by his faith-ALL his sins were forgiven at that time.
None of the early church leaders that I know of were celebate, except maybe Paul, and I think they did just fine.
John is explicitly not saying that. He's talking to Christians about Christians for whom they are to pray, and for whom they are not to pray.
You've just turned around his words completely in the service of your tradition. And, BTW, if you have no tradition, how come you just happened to independently come up with exactly the same slams against Catholicism as every other ex-Catholic fundamentalist in the world?
BTW, Jesus spoke to Pilate of Judas "having the greater sin". Pretty clearly, God does not view all sins equally.
Instead of reinventing the wheel. They should interview priests of the Greek Orthodox church in order to gain perspective on the issue.
It will not violate any religious teaching to ask questions and LISTEN so they can be better informed. They may find it enlightening to take the right position for their faith.
Nice post.
Well, except for THE Church leader! :-)
Interestingly, nowhere in the gospels does it indicate anything about any of the apostles marital status (except Paul) although we do know that Peter had a mother in law. Since Peter's wife is never mentioned, I've often wondered if her mother outlived her - probably not too uncommon 2000 years ago.
You're kidding, right?
St. Augustine, one of the greatest Church fathers, was celibate as a priest/Bishop
You will cite the mother-in-law/miracle passages to prove that Peter was married. I will say all that proves is that Peter had been married. His wife could have just as easily been dead by the time Jesus found him.
I just get tired of that throw away line that is based on opinion.
bump
I don't get your point. Without the Bible, how do you run a church? The Bible is God's Word to us. How else can we learn of His ways?
The church is all the believers.
I don't follow. How is Peter's authority give us discernment over the trus New Testamant writings? Did Peter put the Bible together?
My Bible is comprised of 66 books-39 Old and 27 New Testament books. All the books contained in them are the correct books. I have no idea what Sola Scripture is.
Priests being celibate is a tradition just started in the 13th century of so. It's no sin to be married and have sex. Many people are actually MORE effective in the ministry as a result of marriage.
The bottom line is a belief that one is more holy if one does not marry. Balderdash. Jesus is the one who is holy. All who have true belief are holy whether married or not.
The Catholic church will eventually drop this outdated rule. Until they do they will have trouble drawing people
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, cap. 3
~180 AD1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,(1) departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.(2) There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."(3) There is also a very powerful(4) Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
My point is that Sola Scriptura is fatally flawed as an approach to faith/religion. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the entire rule of faith. While its true that tradition is condemned within scripture, it is man's tradition that is condemned not the tradition of the church. The canon of the New Testament wasn't assembled prior to ~70AD. Oral tradition and teaching, the foundation of the Church was the only way to pass on the faith to others.
The Apostles didn't go around reading out of a book, they boldly proclaimed the good news as it was handed to them from Christ. They, in turn handed it on to their peers, and so on down through time.
Only relatively recently has the Bible even been available for the masses to read. Only relatively recently could the masses read. The only way the faithful could learn about Christ was to hear the good news preached.
The Bible is on an equal plane with tradition where faith formation is concerned. The Catholic Church has always taught that. Without a teaching Magisterium to interpret the scripture, its left up to individuals to decide what is truth. This is why we have this train wreck that is Christianity today with over 33,000 separate denominations and more forming daily. Do you really think Christ meant for Christians to be divided up like this, disunified? Paul wrote to the different congregations to unify them in practice, to keep them Catholic (universal).
Upon this rock I will build my Church (not churches) and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
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.