Posted on 10/04/2005 7:51:36 PM PDT by JohnRoss
An excellent article is found here by Dr. Greg Bahnsen:
Only one grave sin of David is recorded in the Bible, and this sin was expiated through the death of his son and a major dose of sackcloth and ashes. Moses shows no accumulation of sins after his wavering on the power of God. He repented of this, did not subsequently justify it, and paid for it with his inability to enter the Promised Land. I do not even mention Solomon a) because he does not fit the mold of initiation I'm talking about and b) because his devolving into sin is manifest. Even then, he seems regretful of many things upon retrospection toward the end of his life.
The same question may be asked of those who look to the Magisterium for guidance. (I am excluding the left wing of Roman Catholicism, which is essentially secular humanism with a religious veneer.) Were the Magisterium clear, why do conservatives and liberals struggle within the mainstream of the Catholic Church? Why do traditionalists disdain mainstream Catholic conservatives such as EWTN and Opus Dei? Looking at the traditionalists, it appears they are themselves divided into camps such as the Lefevrists, the Feeneyites, and several others and are at odds. Yet it is the traditionalists who take the statements of past Popes and church councils most seriously.
Were the Magisterium clearer than the Bible, there would be seamless unity within Roman Catholicism. No such seamless unity currently exists, though it may have in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Furthermore, if Tradition meant the same thing to Roman Catholics as it does to the Eastern Orthodox, there would have been no schism over 900 years ago.
But of course. 8~)
***Getting back to sola scriptura, and the question still stands. 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?***
You have not been describing Sola Scriptura.
You have been describing Solo Scriptura, as has this article.
The reason that there are "hundreds of disagreeing sects" is that, under the doctrine of Solo Scriptura, you get to ignore what the Holy Spirit spoke to the churches in times past and simply make up your own new doctrines. Or worse, decide that old heresies were better than orthodoxy, repackage them under redefinitions of terms so that they appear to be orthodox, and give them to people who don't trust themselves to be able to properly understand the Bible which violates the propositions of Sola Scriptura.
But, that is NOT Sola Scriptura.
***Perhaps I'll start the Church of the HarleyD's.***
Well, with the noise from the Screaming Eagle brand baffles in the hogs, we won't be hearing any heresies spoken in the church.
***LOL. Save me a pew. 8~)***
Like you'll be sitting in a pew in THAT church.
Luther was appalled by the unbiblical traditions that had become the focus of the church. Jesus was just as appalled by the religious leaders of His day basing traditions on something other than the Word of God.
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Mar 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Luk 6:3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
***Except yourself.***
Oh, I see. You have the wrong definition of Sola Scriptura and you don't like the correction. This, BTW, is another distinction of Solo Scriptura.
For your information, I have consulted more than one Reformer on the proper definitions and applications of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura before writing on this thread (even citing from one of them), which every good Sola Scripturist will do before heading down the donney brook lane of Solo Scriptura.
How many people have you consulted about the proper definition of Sola Scriptura before posting?
Am I your enemy because I told you the truth?
***Amen, L-C. Looks like you did read the article.***
I got far enough down to properly understand how he defined his term. I quit reading when it came to the obligatory part of the play where they set the scarecrow on fire and danced around the funeral pyre.
Been there, done that. And, according the the Arminians, no one can burn things as well as we Calvinists so I wasn't very impressed.
I suspect that the short answer to your question would point one quickly not so much to the obscurity of the magisterium, but to the hardness of heart that we all are prone to. You and I seem to be in substantive agreement about "Catholic" leftists, but my argument applies equally to those on the right-edge, too.
I myself am a traditionalist Catholic, preferring, as a matter of clear presentation of the theology of the Mass, the so-called Tridentine usage. My general theological outlook tends to gravitate toward the older presentations of argument, as I believe they are clearer. However, inasmuch as I have no doctrinal problem with the "New Mass" of Paul VI, when it is celebrated according to the rubrics in the missal, I am *not* in substantive disagreement with orthodox Catholics of the Novus Ordo persuasion. In other words, within the umbrella of Catholic orthodoxy, there is certainly some latitude to expression. This is a similar situation to what I alluded to in my original posts about the different rites within the Church.
But, being, as I said, a traditionalist, I feel qualified to address some of the other issues from the "right-side" of the Catholic spectrum that go too far.
You lump into the Catholic mix the Lefebvrists, the Feeneyites, etc. erroneously. They are in schism. They are therefore not in union with the pope. They are therefore not Catholic. They are therefore not part of the spectrum of belief held acceptable under the umbrella of Catholic legitimacy.
These people of whom we have spoken, from the left and the right, have removed themselves from the Church. The leftists among them are classically Protestant in their disavowal of legitimate Church authority, which the rightists, in selectively rejecting the same authority, are little more than "Protestants in fiddleback vestments." I feel no responsibility to own-up to either extreme.
Meanwhile, the Church goes on proclaiming those things which it has always proclaimed. High degrees of boldness in that proclamation may sometimes be lacking these days, but denial of any doctrine, once proclaimed, has never occured. Those people who hold to that doctrine, and only those people, are Catholic. St. James, in James 2:10, is sufficient authority to substantiate that claim.
Well, to set the record straight, we never said you did it well.
Just lots. ;-)
Really ? Who was it who decided that "The Secret Teachings of John", "The Gospel of Thomas", "The Apocalypse of Peter", "Dialogue of the Savior", "The Acts of John", "The Acts of Thomas", "The Infancy Gospel of Jesus", etc were not canonical ? You know how many so called gospels and apocalypses were floating around in the second century AD ?
Burn one (not "lots") insurrectionist heretic and you get type cast for life.
LOL!
why? Why? WHY?
When an Orthodox poster posts an Orthodox article about a difference between Orthodox views on Sola Scriptura as compared to Protestan views does everyone hijack the discussion to the old Catholic vs. Protestant debate????
Please, folks, the authority of the Pope has nothing to do with the point of the article.
Most of you haven't read te article.
It already deals with many of your objections.
Read it.
Then post.
(We now return you to your regularly scheduled food fight.)
***There is no single doctrine of sola scriptura, and I think this thread makes that evident.***
Ah, but there is only one single definition of Sola Scriptura. I can't help it if you simply want to ignore that, make up your own definitions and move on from there. That was the same spirit in the Arminian (Remonstrants) who just changed whatever they wanted per the doctrine of Solo Scriptura.
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.