Posted on 02/08/2006 1:14:31 PM PST by jecIIny
“He who grounds his faith on Scripture only has no faith”
The faith existing in the Church, from the beginning throughout all ages, is the infallible standard to determine the true sense of Scripture: and accordingly, it is certain, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the Redeemer is God, and hath filled us even with divine power. In fact, he who grounds his faith on Scripture only, that is, on the result of his exegetical studies, has no faith, can have none, and understands not its very nature. Must he not be always ready to receive better information; must he not admit the possibility, that by nature study of Scripture another result may be obtained, than that which has already been arrived at? The thought of this possibility precludes the establishment of any decided, perfectly undoubting, and unshaken faith, which, after all, is alone deserving of the name. He who says, ‘this is my faith,’ hath no faith. Faith, unity of faith, universality of faith, are one and the same; they are but different expressions of the same notion. He who, if even he should not believe the truth, yet believes truly, believes at the same time that he holds fast the doctrine of Christ, that he shares the faith with the Apostles, and with the Church founded by the Redeemer, that there is but one faith in all ages, and one only true one. This faith is alone rational, and alone worthy of man: every other should be called a mere opinion, and, in a practical point of view, is an utter impotency.
Ages passed by, and with them the ancient sects: new times arose, bringing along with them new schisms in the Church. The formal principles of all these productions of egotism were the same; all asserted that Holy Writ, abstracted from Tradition and from the Church, is at once the sole source of religious truth, and the sole standard of its knowledge for the individual. This formal principle, common to all parties separated from the Church;—to the Gnostic of the second century, and the Albigensian and Vaudois of the twelfth, to the Sabellian of the third, the Arian of the fourth, and the Nestorian of the fifth century—this principle, we say, led to the most contradictory belief. What indeed can be more opposite to each other, than Gnosticism and Pelagianism, than Sabellianism and Arianism? The very circumstance, indeed, that one and the same formal principle can be applied to every possible mode of belief; and rather that this belief, however contradictory it may be in itself, can sill make use of that formal principle, should alone convince everyone, that grievous errors must here lie concealed, and that between the individual and the Bible a mediating principle is wanting.
What is indeed more striking than the fact, that every later religious sect doth not deny that the Catholic Church, in respect to the parties that had previously seceded from her, has in substance right on her side, and even recognizes in these cases her dogmatic decisions; while on the other hand, it disputes her formal principles? Would this ecclesiastical doctrine, so formed and so approved of, have been possible, without the peculiar view of the Church entertained of herself? Doth not the one determine the other? With joy the Arian recognises what has decided by the Church against the Gnostics; but he does not keep in view the manner in which she proceeded against them; and he will not consider that those dogmas on which he agrees with the Church, she would not have saved and handed down to his time, had she acted according to those formal principles which he requires of her, and on which he stands. The Pelagian and the Nestorian embrace also, with the most undoubted faith, the decisions of the Church against the Arians. But as soon as the turn comes to either, he becomes as it were stupified, and is inconsiderate enough to desire the matter of Christian doctrine without the appropriate ecclesiastical form—without that form, consequently, by the very neglect whereof those parties, to which he is most heartily opposed, have fallen on the adoption of their articles of belief. It was the same with Luther and Calvin. The pure Christian dogmas, in opposition to the errors of the Gnostics, Paulicians, Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monophysites and others, they received with the most praiseworthy firmness and fervency of faith. But, when they took a fancy to deliver their theses on the relations between faith and works, between free-will and grace, or however else they may be called, they trod (as to form) quite in the footsteps of those whom they execrated….
This accordingly is the doctrine of Catholics. Thou wilt obtain the knowledge full and entire of the Christian religion only in connection with its essential form, which is the Church. Look at the Scripture in an ecclesiastical spirit, and it will present thee an image perfectly resembling the Church. Contemplate Christ in, and with his creation—the Church—the only adequate authority—the only authority representing him, and thou wilt then stamp his image on thy soul….
[The Catholic] is freely convinced, that the Church is a divine institution, upheld by supernal aid, ‘which leads her into all truth;’ that, consequently, no doctrine rejected by her is contained in Scripture; that with the latter, on the contrary, her dogmas perfectly coincide, though many particulars may not be verbally set forth in Holy Writ. Accordingly he has the conviction, that the Scripture, for example doth not teach that Christ is a mere man; nay, he is certain that it represents him also as God. Inasmuch as he professes this belief, he is not free to profess the contrary, for he would contradict himself; in the same way as a man, who has resolved to remain chaste, cannot be unchaste, without violating his resolution. To this restriction, which everyone most probably will consider rational, the Catholic Church subjects her members, and consequently, also, the learned exegetists of Scripture. A Church which would authorize anyone to find what he pleased in Scripture, and without any foundation to declare it as unecclesiastical, such a Church would thereby declare, that it believed in nothing, and was devoid of all doctrines; for the mere possession of the Bible no more constitutes a Church, than the possession of the faculty of reason renders anyone really rational. Such a Church would in fact, as a moral entity, exhibit the contradiction just adverted to, which a physical being could not be guilty of. The individual cannot at one and the same time believe, and not believe, a particular point of doctrine. But if a Church, which consists of a union of many individuals, permitted every member, as such, to receive or to reject at his pleasure, any article of faith, it would fall into this very contradiction, and would be a monster of unbelief, indifferent to the most opposite doctrines, which we might indeed, on our behalf, honour with the finest epithets, but certainly not denominate a Church. The Church must train up souls for the kingdom of God, which is founded on definite facts and truths, that are eternally unchangeable; and so a Church, that knows no such immutable dogmas, is like to a teacher, that knows not what he should teach. The Church has to stamp the image of Christ on humanity; but Christ is not sometimes this, and sometimes that, but eternally the same. She has to breathe into the hearts of men the word of God, that came down from heaven: but this word is no vague, empty sound, wherof we can make what we will.
Johann Adam Möhler
"What are some of the things which a Bible-believing Christian must keep in mind, in the presence of an unchanging yet constantly changing, Roman Catholic Church?"
Verstehen, Danke.
Beg your pardon...but Babylon had essentially ceased to exist even *before* any New Testament references to it were written. Please cite some authoritative sources attesting to your assertion that 1st Century Babylon was a "hub of Jewish intellectuals and had a large Jewish population."
Beg your pardon...but Babylon had essentially ceased to exist even *before* any
New Testament references to it were written. Please cite some authoritative sources
attesting to your assertion that 1st Century Babylon was a "hub of Jewish intellectuals
and had a large Jewish population."
22 posted on 02/08/2006 7:30:24 PM MST by magisterium
b'shem Y'shua Babylon: The oldest and most stable of Jewish communities was saved from the Christians by Muslims sweeping through the Middle East.
Quite a list! Thanks.
I think you will find a lot of small group bible studies at Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in NYC. Here is there web address
http://www.redeemer.com/
BTTT!
You seem to bashing the Catholic Church. I dare say you have not studied it but are basing your statements on many years of hateful indoctrination against the Catholic Church.
We wrote the New Testament. We own it :)
Might be something for you here: http://www.redeemer.com/#Begin
In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism) is the third-century belief that the three persons of the Trinity are merely different modes or aspects of God, rather than three distinct persons. It is attributed to Sabellius, who taught a form of this doctrine in Rome in the third century.
Nestorius (c.386–c.451) was a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch in Syria and later became Patriarch of Constantinople.
That's total hogwash. Look up Babylon's history in any reputable encyclopedia, and you will see that is was virtually uninhabited by the 1st Century AD. The last people of any "learning" who are known to have been there were Chaldean priests in the late 1st Century BC. It was a ghost town after that, with just a few transient nomads sheltering among the ruins. In any case, and this is the point, St. Peter would have had no reason to stay there as a base of operations in the mid-1st Century, assuming he had any motivation to go there at all (there is NO evidence that he did). "Babylon," as used in 1Peter 5, was code for "Rome," used by the early Church, already in persecution, in part to hide the whereabouts of Christian leaders like St. Peter, and also to obscure Christian activity in the very heart of the Roman Empire. All of the references to "Babylon" in the Book of Revelation likewise refer to Rome. This is easy enough to ascertain, as the references to Babylon being "fallen" are in the context of a future event. The actual city had long since fallen to ruin.
Here's an excerpt from the Baghdad Museum website. I presume these people know a little something about the history of a city the ruins of which are planted on their own soil:
"In 331 BC, Darius III was defeated by the forces of the Macedonian ruler Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela, and in October, Babylon saw its own invasion and occupation. A native account of this invasion notes a ruling by Alexander not to enter the homes of its inhabitants.
Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a center of learning and commerce. But following Alexander’s mysterious death in 323 BC in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, and decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the middle.
The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BC states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the ancient name of E-Saggila. With this deportation, the history of Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later, it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary. By 141 BC, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity."
And the source for this list is...?
"We wrote the New Testament. We own it :)"
We appreciate your taking care of it all those years. As the saying goes, I would be lost without it!
I wonder whether women are silent and cover their heads in your church if you are so dedicated to sola scriptura.
As I said before, we have no basis of agreement between those of us who rely on the Bible as our authority and those who rely on 1)Pope, 2)Catholic Church, and 3)Bible in that order.Comparing the operation of the Catholic Church with the Bible is of no profit unless the Catholic would agree to abide by the Bible teaching. Ain't likely.
DX10
Since Dec 12, 2005
Welcome to Free Republic. You've caught on quickly. It takes most newbies more than a couple of months to post such an ignorant, insulting comment.
Lets see, the bread is literal flesh because the Church says the bible says it was His body, but Babylon is not Babylon even though the bible says he did, because the church says it is not?
Peter had gone to and written from Babylon because he was obedient to his call to the Jews.
"There is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Revelation was published, about 90-96 AD," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Take some time to reflect on how prominent Babylon ( now Iraq) was in scripture. Many believe the garden of Eden was in Iraq, it was the cradle of civilization, It is believed that Noah built the ark in Iraq. and that the Tower of Babel was there. The roots of Israel are in Iraq as Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq. It is said that Isaac's was sent to the people of his father to find his wife Rebekah in Nahor, which is in Iraq.
Jacob met Rachel in Banylon, Jonah preached in Nineveh ( which was babylon) Assyria, which is in modern Babylon now Iraq conquered the ten tribes of Israel, Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem, Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq so we know that Jesus Himself was there in the furnace with the young men.It was in Babylon that Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the "writing on the wall"
Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq.( thus the large population of Jews there for Peter to preach to them just as Ezekiel preached had preached there. At the birth of Christ the wise men that came to worship were from there.
It seems likely to me that God sent Peter to the place that was prominent in Biblical and Jewish history not to the uncircumcised pagans in Rome. Peter the apostle to the Jews, Paul to the gentiles .(Galations 2)
Here's an excerpt from the Baghdad Museum website.......
31 posted on 02/09/2006 8:28:39 AM MST by magisterium
Was the Babylonian Talmud written in Rome? Everyone knows that it was written in Babylon. You would deny the history of G-d's Chosen people and believe haSatan.
Iraq
Main article: History of the Jews in Iraq Iraqi Jews' constitute one of the world's oldest, and historically most important, Jewish communities. Abraham came from Ur in Babylon, and it was to Babylon that the Jews were exiled around 600 BCE. The descendants of these exiles ensured that Babylonia became the most important Jewish community after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. The community thrived as the center of Jewish learning until the Middle Ages, when the Mongol invasion, and the subsequent persecutions of the Persians significantly reduced its importance. With the rule of the Ottoman Empire, the life of Iraqi Jews improved, though the community never regained its former importance. Iraqi Jews played an important role in the early days of the country's independence, but the Iraqi Jewish community, numbered at around 150,000 in 1948, was almost entirely driven out of the country by increasing persecution from the 1940s onwards. Today, less than 100 remain.
from History of the Jews in Islamic lands
b'shem Y'shua
Wrong. Paul was writing to a community that he hadn't been to yet! Someone ELSE had done the work, and at least 10 years before hand, if we consider that the Jews were expelled on account of the friction between them and the Christian "sect" in the late 40's by the Emperor.
Regards
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.