Posted on 10/08/2008 11:33:01 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Where did the writer get that?
Ron Sider? Jim Wallis? Tony Campolo?
Chapter & Verse please. This is the first I've heard this!
Does 2 Tim 3:16 not promote sola scriptura?
Sola Scriptura does not disallow other authority, but requires that all such submit to the Scriptures as the final logos authority, to which the Lord and his apostles themselves appealed, not a mortal man or men who presume that supremacy, and that according to their interpretation, only their interpretation can be right in any conflict.
Sola Scriptura requires that all authoritative teaching must be able to withstand the scrutiny of sound Scriptural exegesis, by which you will not find the perpetual virginity of Mary nor her as a Heavenly object of prayer, etc., supported. Nor even the Perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome, from whence all this such flows.
“Does 2 Tim 3:16 not promote sola scriptura”
Not by itself. Catholics will make use of the things Scripture is useful for, and rightly point out that the church itself also is such. But the key words are “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” which is nowhere said of Israel or the church, though they were and she upholds it (1 Tim. 3:15).
It is that which is affirmed to be inspired that enabled the church to be born, as it consists only of souls who are added to it by faith in the Word.
While even if it were possible that some traditions about Christ that are not recorded (Jn. 21:25) were also inspired, it is too late for that, as to hold that tradition is equal to Scripture is essentially adding to a closed canon (which t took 1400+ years and the Reformation for Rome to provide herself with a faulty, but “infallible” conclusion).
Meanwhile, church tradition is virtually a bottomless pit, as there is no certain beginning nor end to it. And that which is shown to contradict Scripture relies upon a self proclaim infallible magisterium. And appealing to Scripture for proof is submitting to sola Scriptura. But according her apologists, laymen cannot know anything for certain from that method, but need to submit first to the doctrine of her infallible magisterium.
But even then they can offer no infallible list of infallible teaching, while much or most of the Bible remains without such by heart (and few western Catholics manifest care for such).
I see the Berean heart and method much better, even with it’s inherent abuses.
“In our language, we shouldn’t fall into the ambivalent expression ‘the three religions of the Book,’” Fisichella said, referring to Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Instead, he insisted, Christianity is properly understood as a “religion of the Word.”
I think that sums it up. Frankly, I've never understood why the Muslims get a pass on this, since they accept neither the Book nor the Word...but it seems to be standard to accept Islam as being Biblically based. Just shows you what you can do with the Bible when an independent "prophet" gets hold of it and puts his own gloss on it, I guess.
He got it from Liberation Theology. In any case, “base communities” are so yesterday. The good bishop needs to get up to speed on this.
However, given the context of which the synod seems (in this translation) to be speaking, they are right. Even the most fundamentalist Bible only Christian is not a “Religion of the Book” in that there are doctrines that are not explicitly spelled out that all Christians hold. For instance, while the Bible speaks of the Trinity and Incarnation, the details are pretty vague at times. But looking at the Scripture and thinking about it, you can get a better idea. In Islam, that would not be possible.
To say that the doctrine of the Triunity of God is most certainly Biblically derived and substantiated, and if the born again Christian faith was not that of the Book, and which materially provides pastors, etc., it would simply not exist.
(James 1:18) “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”
(Eph 1:13) “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,”
(Rom 15:4) “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.”
Something seems seriously askew here.
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
LOL! A Cardinal is not a source for God’s Word. Man made traditions nullify God’s Word.
Deception NEEDS to attached itself to something good to survive so of course these RC will ‘try’ to attached itself to God’s Word.
They can say it all they want but GOD’s Word says differently. And HIS WORD is the ONLY WORD that counts as many will learn the hard way.
The Word of God is Jesus, not just a collection of books
He’s not Christian. A noahide
Same place they get a lot of other made up stuff. Tradition
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.