Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Vanity of Their Minds: Sola Scriptura
www.archangelsbooks.com ^ | Fr. John Whiteford

Posted on 10/04/2005 7:51:36 PM PDT by JohnRoss

Sola Scriptura In the Vanity of Their Minds by Fr. John Whiteford

AN ORTHODOX EXAMINATION OF THE PROTESTANT TEACHING Introduction: Are Protestants Beyond Hope?

Since my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to the Orthodox Faith, I have noted a general amazement among many of those who have been raised Orthodox that a Protestant could be converted. This is not because they are uncertain about their own faith, usually they are just amazed that anything could break through a Protestants stubborn insistence on being wrong! What I have come to understand is that most Orthodox people have a confused and limited grasp of what Protestantism is, and where its adherents are coming from. Thus when "cradle Orthodox" believers have their run-ins with Protestants, even though they often use the same words, they do not generally communicate because they do not speak the same theological language — in other words, they have no common theological basis to discuss their differences. Of course when one considers the some twenty thousand plus differing Protestant groups that now exist (with only the one constant trait of each group claiming that it rightly understands the Bible), one must certainly sympathize with those that are a bit confused by them.

(Excerpt) Read more at archangelsbooks.com ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Current Events; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues; Orthodox Christian; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; orthodoxy; protestant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-188 next last

1 posted on 10/04/2005 7:51:36 PM PDT by JohnRoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnRoss

What a wonderful article !

If Sola Scriptura were valid, why are there so many Protestant sects ? Was the Holy Spirit napping until John Wesley or Charles Taze Russell showed up ?


2 posted on 10/04/2005 8:23:39 PM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

That's why I gave up on being Protestant. Of course the Evangelicals and the Lutherans don't like each other very much either. Both believe in Sola Scriptura.


3 posted on 10/04/2005 8:29:04 PM PDT by JohnRoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnRoss; don-o
Don-o, was it you who's uncle wrote this or some similar work on the same subject? Forgive me for the ping if I'm wrong.
4 posted on 10/04/2005 8:33:29 PM PDT by conservonator (Pray for those suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnRoss

Sola Scriptura has an implicit arrogance to it. Back in 2003 there were threads here about evangelicals wanting to send missionaries to Iraq.

Sure.

We need American evangelicals to bring some old time religion to an Iraqi Christian church that was founded by a Babylonian Jew who went to Jerusalem for Passover and stayed for Pentacost where he heard Peter preach about Jesus the Nazarene.


5 posted on 10/04/2005 8:35:54 PM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

It's a bit like the American Presbyterians who went to Egypt in the 19th century trying to convert the Copts whose church was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist.

The same St. Mark who wrote the gospel.


6 posted on 10/04/2005 8:38:33 PM PDT by JohnRoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnRoss

Personally, I am a Catholic who loves the Uniate Church.

I try to attend Greek Catholic Easter Mass every year. It is truly wonderful.


7 posted on 10/04/2005 8:46:12 PM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnRoss

Check this out.

http://www.byzcath.org/


8 posted on 10/04/2005 8:48:08 PM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnRoss
That's why I gave up on being Protestant.

No one can fault the Protestants for their love of Jesus and the Bible, but ultimately their approach is like swearing allegence to the Constitution while denying the authority of the Supreme Court.

The kings of Israel were no less kings of Israel when they didn't honor G-d.

My old parish priest once honored the Reformation saying "we needed it," but I wonder why we still need it?

9 posted on 10/04/2005 8:51:21 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

The Church needed the Reformation like the American auto industry needed the Honda Accord.


10 posted on 10/04/2005 8:54:24 PM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
The Church needed the Reformation like the American auto industry needed the Honda Accord.

You'll get no argument from me on that account.

Nevertheless, I wonder how many of Luther's 95 theses are still relevant to the principles and practices of the modern Church. I've yet to meet a single Protestant who has revisited and re-evaluated the original complaints.

11 posted on 10/04/2005 9:11:55 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnRoss

read later


12 posted on 10/04/2005 9:42:50 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

That's my Church!


13 posted on 10/04/2005 10:47:23 PM PDT by TotusTuus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
"I've yet to meet a single Protestant who has revisited and re-evaluated the original complaints."

As a Scripture Only Christian and former Catholic, I've met very few Catholics who don't put the musings of men above the Word of God.

My mother-in-law, a lifelong devoted Catholic who began reading the Bible for herself in the last years before her death, and came to a saving knowledge of Christ, was hurt and perplexed because she had been discouraged...told that Bible interpretation would be done for her...from reading the Bible for herself.

My experience has been that you can never pin a Catholic down on anything. It's always "Well, some Catholics may believe that or practice that, but not ALL Catholics do."

I say if you like the liturgy and the costumes, more power to you. As long as the truth isn't made to seem like a needle in a haystack of ritual and rote recitations, which it often has been.

For me, the unvarnished truth is enough.

14 posted on 10/04/2005 11:07:36 PM PDT by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
I've yet to meet a single Protestant who has revisited and re-evaluated the original complaints.

Pleased to meet you!

15 posted on 10/04/2005 11:10:37 PM PDT by Gamecock (Crystal meth is not a fruit of the Spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: papertyger; xzins; XeniaSt; blue-duncan; jude24
No one can fault the Protestants for their love of Jesus and the Bible, but ultimately their approach is like swearing allegence to the Constitution while denying the authority of the Supreme Court.

And who made the Supreme Court the final authority on the Constitution? The Supreme Court usurped that authority in Marbury v. Madison. They did not derive that authority from the Constitution. The fact is that the Supreme Court derives its authority from the Constitution, not the other way around.

Likewise, any authority that the Roman Catholic Church or any other Church would have would derive from Scripture. Any authority usurped from outside the authority of Scripture would be invalid. Traditions not found in scripture are as invalid as the Court's usurpation of the legislative perogative in cases such as Roe v. Wade.

Jesus appealed to scripture as his authority. He chastised the Pharisees (the religious leaders of his time) for adding traditions to the scriptures which were not scriptural. He told them that their traditions had made the word of God of no effect.

16 posted on 10/04/2005 11:15:03 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
why are there so many Protestant sects ?

Why are there so many Catholic sectlets?

17 posted on 10/04/2005 11:15:50 PM PDT by Gamecock (Crystal meth is not a fruit of the Spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Is this Protestant bashing week on Free Republic?

Perhaps we should post some chapters from Alexander Hislop's Classic Scottish Presbyterian thesis on Babylon.

18 posted on 10/04/2005 11:17:53 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Amen.


19 posted on 10/04/2005 11:26:12 PM PDT by NZerFromHK (HK Chinese by birth, NZer by adoption, US conservatism in politics, born-again Christian in faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Perhaps we should post some chapters from Alexander Hislop's Classic Scottish Presbyterian thesis on Babylon.

Perhaps the PCA was a bit to ecumenical when we removed certain parts of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

20 posted on 10/04/2005 11:49:57 PM PDT by Gamecock (Crystal meth is not a fruit of the Spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
"Is this Protestant bashing week on Free Republic?"


The article is not bashing Protestants. It points out some of the flaws in the assertion that a religion can be based on the bible alone. There is not a single religion that is based upon the bible alone, so it's a reasonable topic for a forum dedicated to religious discussion.
21 posted on 10/05/2005 12:20:39 AM PDT by ByGraceThroughFaith (Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
"Perhaps the PCA was a bit to ecumenical when we removed certain parts of the Westminster Confession of Faith."

Which parts of the Westminster Confession of Faith would you like to restore?
22 posted on 10/05/2005 12:22:29 AM PDT by ByGraceThroughFaith (Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
"Why are there so many Catholic sectlets?"

It's a serious question, and you aren't answering it at all, you're simply changing the subject. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

Some say there are tens of thousands of religions based upon the bible. Most of us could name several dozen without too much trouble, all claiming they used the bible to derive their beliefs. Why do they disagree if the bible alone is sufficient? The answer is because nobody uses scripture alone. Nobody. There is no religion based solely on the bible. Can you at least admit that this is a problem?
23 posted on 10/05/2005 12:32:23 AM PDT by ByGraceThroughFaith (Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
"I say if you like the liturgy and the costumes, more power to you."

?????
24 posted on 10/05/2005 12:34:29 AM PDT by ByGraceThroughFaith (Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
As a Scripture Only Christian and former Catholic, I've met very few Catholics who don't put the musings of men above the Word of God.

As a former Protestant, I find your claim curious. I suppose it's easy to forget it was the "musings of men" that caused one congregation to become two, four, eight, etc. when members of one's own congregation are all members of the same faction.

My experience has been that you can never pin a Catholic down on anything. It's always "Well, some Catholics may believe that or practice that, but not ALL Catholics do."

Perhaps it would be wise to recall the adage about throwing stones from glass houses. Would you feel compelled to defend every vagary of doctrine practiced by every Protestant denomination?

As long as the truth isn't made to seem like a needle in a haystack of ritual and rote recitations, which it often has been.

Is the "truth" any less obscured by the myriad of competing hermeneutics found amongst the Protestants?

For me, the unvarnished truth is enough.

I hope you're right.

25 posted on 10/05/2005 12:39:54 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Pleased to meet you!

And I, you. What was your determination?

26 posted on 10/05/2005 12:41:44 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Jesus appealed to scripture as his authority.

Then where does the Tanahk explain the Sermon on the Mount, His addition to the "Shema," or His discourse on divorce?

Conflating particulars of the analogy with what was being analogized simply dodges the fact the Protestant church has no means of settling disputes.

And while you're perfectly welcome to pontificate on what is and isn't valid from Scripture, I see in David's treatment of Saul, both a sound rebuttal to your contentions and a guide for our comportment toward our own Supreme Court.

27 posted on 10/05/2005 1:16:17 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Christian


28 posted on 10/05/2005 3:19:32 AM PDT by Gamecock (Crystal meth is not a fruit of the Spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
Don-o, was it you who's uncle wrote

Pretty good memory there. Fr John Whiteford, Orthodox priest in Texas; no blood relation, but I know him.

29 posted on 10/05/2005 3:21:13 AM PDT by don-o (Don't be a Freeploader. Do the right thing and become a Monthly Donor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ByGraceThroughFaith; Alex Murphy; Frumanchu; irishtenor; rwfromkansas; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; ...
It's a serious question, and you aren't answering it at all, you're simply changing the subject. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

Actually I'm not changing the subject. Division of Protestant Churches was used here as proof of the error of Sola Scriptura. I merely pointed out that there are some 300 Catholic sectlets out there.

There are not nearly as many Protestant Churches out there as many say. The term Protestant today is used wrongly to identify non-Romanist churches.

By the traditional definition, there are very few churches that are still protesting. There are many who will not claim the name Protestant. I am protesting, therefore I am a Protestant.

I am pinging a few Protestants. This is a very important subject and I am sure that they will be able to add much to the discussion.

30 posted on 10/05/2005 3:32:18 AM PDT by Gamecock (Crystal meth is not a fruit of the Spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
The problem is that we would not have a New Testament Canon, nor know what it was, if it weren't for the Traditions of the Church.

Protestants are forced to either recognize the value of the Church's Tradition in determining the canon, or to ignore the thorny question of the canon.

The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and of life; that does not make our own personal interpretations of the Scripture infallible, however, nor does this make the Bible the only rule of faith and of life. Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura..

Personally, I argue that the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds predate and are contemporary with the formation of the NT canon, respectively, and the Didache and 1Clement were written within a generation of the New Testament. These sources help to define what the NT means.

31 posted on 10/05/2005 3:37:04 AM PDT by jude24 ("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Ummmmm, GC, I don't think you read the post, at all.
Your reply is a non sequitor.

This isn't a pro-catholic article at all.

The author is Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.
He has some strong things to say about the Roman church.

Adress the arguments in the actual paper.


32 posted on 10/05/2005 3:45:28 AM PDT by newberger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
"Actually I'm not changing the subject."


Actually, you are.

If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

That's all I'm asking.
33 posted on 10/05/2005 3:58:56 AM PDT by ByGraceThroughFaith (Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: ByGraceThroughFaith

Before I can address anything, we have to agree on definitions. That's all I'm trying to do. And my point stays the same.


35 posted on 10/05/2005 4:45:35 AM PDT by Gamecock (Crystal meth is not a fruit of the Spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ByGraceThroughFaith

Actually, if you examined most of the differences in the various Protestant churches you will find that the disagreements are about the form of church government(congregational vs elder rule, single elder vs multiple elder, etc) and other issues (dunking vs sprinkling, etc.)that are not specifically spelled out in the Bible.


36 posted on 10/05/2005 4:54:32 AM PDT by irishtenor (At 270 pounds, I am twice the bike rider Lance is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Gamecock,

I'm asking you a very simple question. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?


37 posted on 10/05/2005 4:55:58 AM PDT by ByGraceThroughFaith (John 17:20-23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Gamecock; jo kus

I'm not surprised by this article. My friend jo kus and I have been discussing this very issue for the last several days. As I've harp on this until everyone out here gets sick of reading my posts (I know I do) the issue really revolves around our interpretation of God and man.

While the Catholics and Orthodox don’t like to admit it, there are many "sects" of Catholics and Orthodox as well as Protestants albeit probably not as many. People bounce around these various sects like Pacheco balls simply because they have the wrong soteriology. The leap isn’t that great anymore. It doesn’t surprise me when an AOG, Baptist or even a liberal Presbyterian becomes Orthodox, a Catholic becomes Protestant, an Orthodox become Catholic, etc.

The distinction between most churches is growing fainter with ecumenicalism as the message gets distilled down into “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” This is the tradition of men.

Luther had it right. Sola Scriptura. You must look to the scriptures first and THEN the tradition of men. You cannot look to tradition first PLUS the scripture. This was the early church fathers belief, especially Augustine and Jerome, and the primary reason they distinguish the inspired writings from the uninspired. The church fathers knew they and we were prone to make mistakes and traditions based upon mistakes.

That didn’t stop us.


39 posted on 10/05/2005 5:13:24 AM PDT by HarleyD ("...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
"Actually, if you examined most of the differences in the various Protestant churches you will find that the disagreements are about the form of church government(congregational vs elder rule, single elder vs multiple elder, etc) and other issues (dunking vs sprinkling, etc.)that are not specifically spelled out in the Bible."


So the differences between the hundreds of competing sects are really not significant, and there was no church government established in the bible?

The only difference between Saddleback, the local PCA congregation, the local Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is a minor and insignificant disagreements over leadership structure?

You too are changing the subject.

I'm asking a very simple question. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?
40 posted on 10/05/2005 5:19:13 AM PDT by ByGraceThroughFaith (John 17:20-23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Nevertheless, I wonder how many of Luther's 95 theses are still relevant to the principles and practices of the modern Church. I've yet to meet a single Protestant who has revisited and re-evaluated the original complaints.

Take a look sometime and see how many of the 95 theses could apply to various Protestant churches that routinely try to convince their members that their salvation is linked to what portion of their income they give to the church.

41 posted on 10/05/2005 5:24:52 AM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ByGraceThroughFaith
I'm asking a very simple question. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

I have an even more crucial question:
If sola scriptura was so vital, why isn't it even alluded to in the Bible?

42 posted on 10/05/2005 5:41:44 AM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: All

Can we stick to the subject here? The link in the OP is about PROBLEMS WITH THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA. It's a bit long, but presents an interesting critique of contemporary Christianity and the doctrine that the bible alone is the sole rule of faith. The topic is a fundamental one for modern Christians. In fact, the subject is the elephant in the living room of contemporary Christianity.

It would indeed be nice if we could all act like adults and actually stick to the subject and be objective, rather than resorting to internecine griping.


43 posted on 10/05/2005 5:42:52 AM PDT by ByGraceThroughFaith (John 17:20-23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ByGraceThroughFaith
The article is not bashing Protestants.

The intention of the thread was to bash protestants. Just read posts 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, & 11 and you can see that this thread started out as flame bait. If a protestant were to post a similar article about the Catholic Church and a bunch of other protestants jumped on the bandwagon, I suspect the article would have been moved to the smokey back room or yanked before you could say "Two Babylons."

44 posted on 10/05/2005 5:53:38 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Catholic sectlet ? What is a Catholic sectlet ?

Jesus created a human church. He empowered his disciples to go forth and teach and forgive sins and gave them the gift of the Holy Spirit to answer their questions. That human church he created was the Catholic Church in direct human succession from the disciples.


45 posted on 10/05/2005 6:06:05 AM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
"The intention of the thread was to bash protestants."

I do not know what the intention of the thread was, but it's clearly an interesting OP, and has much to say about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The author is an Evangelical Christian who converted to the Orthodox faith, and has written a critique of a Christian doctrine. The questions his essay raises are valid questions.

The hundreds of disagreeing denominations that claim to be based upon the bible are an elephant in the living room. Nobody wants to talk about it, but it's there, and it is a scandal to the gospel. The author claims that sola scriptura is to blame, and has written a very readable critique of this doctrine. The author is not Roman Catholic, and is in fact critical of the Roman Catholic Church. A quick look at the link makes that clear to anyone who has bothered to read it before offering their opinions on it. It raises many good questions, one of which is the following:

If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?
46 posted on 10/05/2005 6:06:34 AM PDT by ByGraceThroughFaith (John 17:20-23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

The disagreements between Episcopalians and Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists are vastly more substantial than administrative disagreements.


47 posted on 10/05/2005 6:09:49 AM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Hello again. Thanks for the ping

the issue really revolves around our interpretation of God and man.

Our anthropology of who is man is very important to the question of how God and man relate to each other. Harley has an excellent point on this matter - especially when one considers how humanism has pervaded our society, and by osmosis, into our own thoughts. While we don't agree on our anthropologies, (specifically on man's free will) we need good Calvinists to remind us of who we are in comparison to God! We can forget God's sovereignty and how EVERYTHING that we do depends on Him - whether faith or good deeds. This is opposed to our society's view that has turned decidely Pelagianistic.

While the Catholics and Orthodox don’t like to admit it, there are many "sects" of Catholics and Orthodox as well as Protestants albeit probably not as many.

While I would agree that there are fewer Protestant denominations than advertised by some Catholic apologists, I don't agree with the term "sect" when discussing the various "wings" of Catholicism - such as Traditional Catholics, Liberal Catholics, Neo-Conservatives, etc. I do agree with Harley, though, that we as Catholics are no longer as monolithic-appearing as we once were. While my studies of the history of thought in Catholicism has yielded a pretty good diversity, (there has ALWAYS been a number of theologians who had varying opinions on matters) the typical lay person probably believed roughly the same thing wherever one went. Maybe because of the speed of communication and modernism, things have changed somewhat on this. Or maybe it is the effect of ecumenicism. This would be an interesting topic to further explore.

God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” This is the tradition of men

Of course, since our anthropologies are different, I must disagree with my friend's total view of Scripture. This line of thought is similar to Manichaeism, a Gnostic heresy of early Christianity that had a strongly negative view towards the material world and man. From my reading of the Church Fathers, I find that there was a Gnostic component that had to be dealt with - men such as Marcion who could not see that the OT and NT God was the same one. However, orthodox beliefs won over - God is love. The message of the entire Bible is that God, despite man's disobedience, condescended to save us because we were worth saving - and He loved us. This message is reflected in nearly every Christian writer who was not overreacting to Pelagianism. We posit that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son - not because He had to, because He wanted to.

Luther had it right. Sola Scriptura. You must look to the scriptures first and THEN the tradition of men. You cannot look to tradition first PLUS the scripture

Luther's initial impetus was correct. Some of the Catholic Church were emphasizing tradition to the EXCLUSION of Scripture. Luther began the swing of the pendulum back to the balanced position that the Church Fathers had seemed to always have a knack for - Apostolic Tradition being used to interpret the Scriptures - the Scriptures being the "source" of our beliefs. Yes, all of the Church's beliefs come from the Scripture, either implicitly or explicitly. And the Apostolic Tradition is used to interpret these writings. To be a Christian the way the early Christians were, one MUST read the Scriptures with the Apostolic Traditions as background. Even in 200, Tertullian could say that heretics didn't deserve the Scriptures because they twisted them to their own intents.

Luther's mistake was that he went too far. Sola Scriptura led to each man to become his own tradition. Unfortunately, the idea that the Spirit inspired men outside of the Church's presentation of the faith is patently false. Christ didn't teach that, nor did the Apostles. Proof of this is noted by Luther HIMSELF.

"If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals {drunkenness, despising the word of God, and no longer caring for the churches}, I would never had begun to teach the gospel" (WL 6, 920)

"If the world last long, it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith we should receive the Councils (of the Catholic Church) and decrees and fly to them for refuge" (Letter to Zwingli, Contra Zuingli et Oecol.)

Luther became disillusioned with Sola Scriptura. By ignoring Apostolic Tradition to help us interpret the Scriptures, we come up with hundreds of creeds, some quite different from the others, such as on the Eucharist, Baptism, salvation, who is God, and so forth. Christ did not intend for His community to be so divided on such primary issues.

Scriptures are clear that the "heirarchy" (those who the "elders" layed their hands upon) was commanded to "hold onto the traditions passed down to you, whether given orally or in written word", NOT the individual with his bible and notes in tow. NOWHERE does the Scripture teach that we are to read the Scriptures and come to conclusions in opposition of the Church on what God wants from man and how we are to pick up our crosses daily and follow Christ.

Brother in Christ

48 posted on 10/05/2005 6:13:50 AM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
God's Word doesn't change

You are equating God's Word with man's interpretations. The issue is GETTING the truth from His Word - this is not so easily done by oneself, considering the result of the various interpretations of the Scriptures, some diametrically opposed.

Regards

49 posted on 10/05/2005 6:18:12 AM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ByGraceThroughFaith
If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?

Because it is God's will.

By the way, it is not "scripture alone". If there are traditions in the Church, they must be consistent with the cannon of inspired scripture. There are many traditions which not only have no basis in scripture, but are plainly in violation of scripture. If a tradition is not based upon or justified by the plain language of the inspired word of God, then it has no place in the Christian Church. All things must be tested against the inspired word of God. That is the basis for the doctrine of "sola scriptura".

50 posted on 10/05/2005 6:20:25 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-188 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