Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE CHURCH FATHERS: A DOOR TO ROME (fundamentalist warns saying they sound too Catholic)
Way of Life ^ | August 18, 2009

Posted on 08/30/2009 2:03:16 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-318 next last
To: Claud
Right! I have a book on medieval manuscripts somewhere....it tried to calculate how much a full Bible would have cost in the High Middle Ages. I forget most of the details, but it basically came out to about as much as a house.

It gets difficult to pin down because prior to mercantalism currency was in a perpetual state of massive inflation and deflation. However, what you said is about a Bible costing as much as a house is probably accurate, but remember that well over 90% of the population COULD NOT AFFORD A HOUSE, they lived in a hut made of mud and straw that they built on land they didn't own. Also, keep in mind that the average person had no disposable income and no savings to speak of.

Just as difficult is the fact that the average person lived nowhere near a monastary where books were inscribed. If a person somehow managed to save the money, they would have to WALK for several days through territory which was seldom safe. Then they would have to pay for the Bible and wait for several years for it to be completed, how the monks would ever let a person with no address know that their book is ready is beyond me.

The feudal system in western Europe did not really begin to break down until the Black Death turned the economy upside down and changed things forever. This is when people started moving to cities and larger towns and mercantalism developed and with it a middle class began to emerge. Less than a century later Gutenberg's printing press came into being and within a few decades Bibles WERE available for the middle class, but before this it was an impossibility.

101 posted on 08/31/2009 9:06:41 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Wish you were here to comment on this thread, old friend. I miss you.


102 posted on 08/31/2009 9:09:13 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Kolokotronis; NYer; Petronski; Claud

The Protestants I have read seem to consider “Paulism” as a form of proto-Protestantism. I have not heard that they embraced Nestorism before.


103 posted on 08/31/2009 9:19:16 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
In my 35+ years as a Protestant, I’ve never heard anyone say, “Luther/Calvin/Spurgeon said it; I believe it!”

I've never heard a Catholic say "Aquinas said it, I believe it," either. What's your point?

We quote COMMENTATORS who provide ARGUMENTS, not AUTHORITIES.

A distinction without a difference.

Luther’s writings (and Augustine’s) are interesting. God’s writings are revealed truth. The latter judges the former.

Obviously. Why do you think we believe any differently?

104 posted on 08/31/2009 9:21:46 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

You mean the esteemed senator from Chappaquiddick? Um, no he won’t.


105 posted on 08/31/2009 9:22:33 AM PDT by Jaded (No act of kindness, no matter how small, ever goes unpunished. -HFG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Using the practice of those who deny scripture to judge those of us who do not is like judging the Catholic Church for the positions of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi.

"Those who deny scripture" == dispensationalists?

Dispensationalists say (quite loudly, in fact) that they're "Bible-believing Christians". You seem to be saying that they're not.

Whom should I trust? Both you and they claim to follow the Bible.

106 posted on 08/31/2009 9:24:05 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Claud; wagglebee; Kolokotronis; NYer; Petronski

There are Protestants who admit their church is an innovation and like it that way. At least they are honest. Those Protestants tend to consider the orthodox past of the church (small o in orthodox) as anachronistic and that they are ‘evolving’ with the times to reflect modern values like female clergy and pro homosexual unions.I don’t agree with them but they are honest. They are not creating a DaVinci code conspiracy dating back 1,800 years.


107 posted on 08/31/2009 9:25:11 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Evangelicals have their own “fathers.”Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc.

Considering that the vast majority of Catholics and Orthodox not only accept nineteenth century liberal Protestant Biblical criticism, but see it as one of their main distinctions from "fundamentalists," it seems to me that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in attacking evangelicals for having modern "fathers."

Where would Catholics and Orthodox be without the Reformation which gave birth to such men? They'd be "fundamentalists" themselves.

108 posted on 08/31/2009 9:26:13 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777; Kolokotronis; NYer; Petronski; Claud; Campion; Iscool

The Nestorianism starts right around this post (it’s not a real long thread):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2316615/posts?page=46#27


109 posted on 08/31/2009 9:28:50 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; RobbyS; Claud; wagglebee; Kolokotronis; NYer; Petronski
Where would Catholics and Orthodox be without the Reformation which gave birth to such men? They'd be "fundamentalists" themselves

That is false/incorrect.

The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary; the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition. (per wikipedia; but it is accurate as far as I can tell).

110 posted on 08/31/2009 9:38:13 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; wideawake

Hey ZC, nice to see you here. Now this party can really get started!! :)

Did something happen to wideawake?


111 posted on 08/31/2009 9:38:29 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777
There are Protestants who admit their church is an innovation and like it that way. At least they are honest. Those Protestants tend to consider the orthodox past of the church (small o in orthodox) as anachronistic and that they are ‘evolving’ with the times to reflect modern values like female clergy and pro homosexual unions.I don’t agree with them but they are honest. They are not creating a DaVinci code conspiracy dating back 1,800 years.

Those are liberal Protestant churches. Liberal Protestant churches agree with Catholics and Orthodox about evolution and Biblical criticism, and I notice that Catholics and Orthodox don't bash liberal Protestants nearly as much as they do fundamentalist Protestants.

What is it about the historicity of events described in the Bible that so offends the Catholic and Orthodox minds?

112 posted on 08/31/2009 9:39:33 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Claud; wagglebee

James White gives a good summary of what Sola Scriptura means:

“The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

To be more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self- authenticating.

The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.”

So where do you get the idea that every believer must possess a Bible? I agree it is an admirable goal, but it is entirely possible for scripture “to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church” without every believer holding a copy in his or her hand.

The problem for the Catholic Church is that many of its controversial teachings are contrary to scripture - Purgatory, indulgences, primacy of the Pope.


113 posted on 08/31/2009 9:40:22 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; RobbyS; Claud; wagglebee; Kolokotronis; NYer; Petronski; wideawake
Liberal Protestant churches agree with Catholics and Orthodox about evolution and Biblical criticism, and I notice that Catholics and Orthodox don't bash liberal Protestants nearly as much as they do fundamentalist Protestants.

I find that statement bizarre. Also, I try not to bash - disagreement is not bashing though I can see why it looks that way.

From an Orthodox Christian perspective having a conservative female married clergy with kids is just as heretical as a female lesbian one who is pro abortion. Should we show preference for one heretic over the other? What's the point?

114 posted on 08/31/2009 9:43:15 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; wagglebee
So where do you get the idea that every believer must possess a Bible? I agree it is an admirable goal, but it is entirely possible for scripture “to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church” without every believer holding a copy in his or her hand.

Ok good question. Let's flesh this out a bit. Let's take a society pre-printing press where the people are mostly illiterate. Only a select few people--really probably only the heads of churches--have anything close to a collection of the Sacred Books. Now...how do you see Sola Scriptura working in this context?

The people rely on the pastor preaching. Now suppose the pastor says something that is contrary to Scripture. How would people find out? Who would correct him?

115 posted on 08/31/2009 9:45:05 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
To be more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self- authenticating.

LOL. Chapter and verse please. Otherwise, you posted a fine tradition of men.

116 posted on 08/31/2009 9:45:06 AM PDT by theanonymouslurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Campion

“Why do you think we believe any differently? “

Because I’ve read papal proclamations. The ones I read cited various saints for authority, rather than explaining how their arguments had validity.

An argument has no authority because it comes from Luther or Augustine. For authority, it need to comply with scripture. That is the difference between citing authorities and reading commentary.


117 posted on 08/31/2009 9:45:26 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; RobbyS; Claud; wagglebee; Kolokotronis; NYer; Petronski; wideawake
The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

The Apostolic Churches predates the New Testament and in fact wrote them and compiled them decades later. The Church was formed after Pentecost without any New Testament scripture.

118 posted on 08/31/2009 9:45:44 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; vladimir998
I know you guys aren't big fans of mine (and I don't blame you!), but my old friend wideawake is no longer here and you two are about as close as I can come.

While I am not Protestant and reject sola scriptura I am even more opposed to the sort of hypocrisy which Catholic and Orthodox are engaging in on this thread. We have people here putting down Fundamentalist Protestantism and boasting of their devotion to antiquity when they do not accept all the teachings of the church fathers but only those they agree with.

Yes, the church fathers taught the real presence. They also taught that the world was created in six days. They also accepted the historicity of the events described in the "old testament." Yet here we have Catholics and Orthodox who blatantly reject the fathers' teachings on these matters condemning Fundamentalists for not accepting the fathers!

If the fathers were wrong about the Tower of Babel or the Flood of Noah being real events, then why should their teaching on anything else be considered authoritative? If science can sit in judgment on the fathers' teachings on creation, why can't it sit in judgment on all their other teachings?

Why is it all right for Catholics and Orthodox to accept the Bible criticism of nineteenth century liberal Protestantism whole cloth (in contradiction to the fathers) while it is wrong for Fundamentalist Protestants to accept the historicity of scriptural events and personages?

I wish you guys would explain this to me.

119 posted on 08/31/2009 9:46:36 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777
I find that statement bizarre. Also, I try not to bash - disagreement is not bashing though I can see why it looks that way.

From an Orthodox Christian perspective having a conservative female married clergy with kids is just as heretical as a female lesbian one who is pro abortion. Should we show preference for one heretic over the other? What's the point?

The point is that Catholics and Orthodox are hypocrites. They reject what the church fathers taught about the historicity of Genesis (on the grounds that "they didn't know back then what we know now") while scolding Fundamentalist Protestants for not accepting the teaching of the church fathers on the real presence. They are hypocrites for condemning Protestantism when they have themselves accepted the Biblical criticism of nineteenth century liberal Protestants whole cloth.

If you get your view of the Bible from liberal Protestants, don't condemn Fundamentalist Protestants for not accepting the church fathers!

120 posted on 08/31/2009 9:55:22 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The problem for the Catholic Church is that many of its controversial teachings are contrary to scripture - Purgatory, indulgences, primacy of the Pope.

According to YOUR interpretation of Scripture.

121 posted on 08/31/2009 9:55:36 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777
The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary; the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition. (per wikipedia; but it is accurate as far as I can tell).

Considering that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have taken the side of modernism in that conflict, it is puzzling why they would criticize Fundamentalist Protestants for not accepting the teachings of the church fathers. Catholics and Orthodox reject everything the fathers taught that is denied by modern "science!"

122 posted on 08/31/2009 9:58:16 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777; wagglebee; NYer; Petronski; Claud

“I have not heard that they embraced Nestorism before.”

Around here Nestorianism and Iconoclasm are the commonest, most often found heresies. Thy both pop up with truly alarming frequency among protestant posters.


123 posted on 08/31/2009 9:59:45 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Hey ZC, nice to see you here.

I doubt you really feel that way.

Now this party can really get started!! :)

There is nothing funny about the blatant hypocrisy displayed by the Catholics and Orthodox on this thread.

Did something happen to wideawake?

Well you may ask! He disappeared last November and hasn't been heard of sense! And since he's apparently the only Catholic who agreed with me on these issues and who understood their importance, I miss him terribly.

124 posted on 08/31/2009 10:00:56 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The ones I read cited various saints for authority, rather than explaining how their arguments had validity.

They cite scripture all over the place.

I'm not sure why you think that an encyclical which gives a reference to a particular writing by a particular church father or saint has to reiterate and explain his entire argument.

The only thing that has the kind of "he said it, therefore I believe it" authority you're talking about in the Catholic Church would be Scripture, and the infallible pronouncements of Councils and Popes. The writings of Augustine are neither of those two things, therefore, anything Augustine wrote is valid only insofar as it does not contradict those sources.

An argument has no authority because it comes from Luther or Augustine. For authority, it need to comply with scripture.

An argument has no authority because it comes from James White, either, yet you cite him.

By the way, who is qualified to judge whether Luther's, or Augustine's, or White's argument "complies with scripture" or not ... and who gave that judge that authority?

125 posted on 08/31/2009 10:01:29 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
So...does real presence mean spiritually, or physically?

I would say "real presence" means "substantially." The question scarcely relates to Catholic teaching on "Transubstantiation." The confusion arises from not understanding what "substance" means as used in the Catholic theological discussion of the Eucharist. It is not at all clear what the relationship between "substantially" and "physically" might be, except that they sure aren't synonyms or interchangeably. Similarly the distinction between "substantially" and "spiritually" is not as crisp as some protestants make it out to be.

It gets wearying combating straw men.

126 posted on 08/31/2009 10:02:53 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary,conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; Mr Rogers; RobbyS; Claud; wagglebee; Kolokotronis; NYer; Petronski; ...
They reject what the church fathers taught about the historicity of Genesis

You do know that church fathers also stated they saw Genesis as allegory? I forget who it was but I am sure someone knows who it was.

In any case.

You must not know that the Orthodox Church only accepts the pronouncements of at least the first 7 Ecumenical Councils as infallible.

The Church fathers are guides, etc but are not treated as gurus. That was the heretical error of Paulines.

127 posted on 08/31/2009 10:04:55 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The problem for the Catholic Church is that many of its controversial teachings are contrary to scripture - Purgatory, indulgences, primacy of the Pope.

Not being a chr*stian, I disagree vehemently with you about sola scriptura and regula fide, but these differences are small compared with the things I disagree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy about.

You yourself seem to be missing a most important point: the Catholic and Orthodox churches actually deny the total inerrancy of the Bible and the historicity of the events and people it describes because of the findings of modern "science" and the Biblical criticism of nineteenth century liberal Protestants. Whenever the church fathers and these latter things contradict each other they accept science and liberal Protestantism hands down, uniformly rejecting the right of the church fathers to pronounce on anything contrary to them. Yet they have the unmitigated gall to scold Fundamentalist Protestants for not accepting the church fathers!

Just what is it about the Six Days of Creation, Metushelach's 969 years, Noah's Flood, Jonah's great fish, or Daniel in the lion's den that threatens them so much? Why do they all but make rejection of these things a standard of their "orthodoxy" while condemning the modernity of Protestantism?

I'll never understand them, and yes, their hypocrisy infuriates me, which I am sure amuses them.

128 posted on 08/31/2009 10:08:29 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777
I forget who it was but I am sure someone knows who it was.

Augustine said that the creation account in Genesis was a condescension to our limited understanding.

Obviously, he was influenced by 19th Century German liberal Protestants in this. As everyone knows.

129 posted on 08/31/2009 10:09:01 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

As far as I can gather, ZC, you cannot question Real Presence, whereas on the other hand, you can question the Fathers on the creation, and due to the ungodly disorientation of the world, too many Catholics and Orthodox choose the skepticism of miracles of the world over the thought of the Fathers.


130 posted on 08/31/2009 10:12:57 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

I appreciate the pings, it’s an interesting discussion.

If I had a dollar for every Nestorian declaration posted in earnest on FR, I’d end the Freepathon right now.


131 posted on 08/31/2009 10:13:16 AM PDT by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Thank you. I have limited memory skills in the AM.


132 posted on 08/31/2009 10:13:42 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777; Mr Rogers
You do know that church fathers also stated they saw Genesis as allegory? I forget who it was but I am sure someone knows who it was.

So? Something does not have to be a-historical to have allegorical meanings. But for some reasons you Orthodox and Catholics seem to insist that these things simply did not happen.

And which part of Genesis is allegory, btw? All of it? The first eleven chapters? The first 25 chapters? It seems to me that you only reject what constitutes "things that just don't happen." May I point out that people don't rise from the dead or get conceived without male sperm either? I guess that means that your J*sus wasn't born of a virgin and didn't rise from the dead either. That was all an allegory. Unless you want to be a hypocrite, of course. BTW, I find it ironic that you defend the Moscow Patriarchate to Tailgunner Joe, considering that that Patriarchate is notoriously "creationist."

The Church fathers are guides, etc but are not treated as gurus. That was the heretical error of Paulines.

Then I suggest you stop berating the Fundamentalists for not accepting them as gurus. Your hypocrisy is palpable.

See what I mean, Mr. Rogers?

133 posted on 08/31/2009 10:14:11 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; Mr Rogers
Not being a chr*stian, I disagree vehemently with you about sola scriptura and regula fide, but these differences are small compared with the things I disagree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy about.

Well, there is that little matter of Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah of Israel and God Incarnate who rose from the dead on the third day, too, but let's forget about that minor detail so we can join together to blame the errors of Wellhausen, Baur, von Harnack, and Darwin on the Pope of Rome.

134 posted on 08/31/2009 10:15:45 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Because I’ve read papal proclamations. The ones I read cited various saints for authority, rather than explaining how their arguments had validity.

So every time the pope issues a statement of some kind he should include a section which explains how and to what degree and why statements sourced to something not in the Bible are authoritative? WHY Should he do this? If the question is already settled, more or less, why hash it out again?

The possibility that a protestant might not understand the way other documents are used as authorities cannot be allowed to dominate every statement by the Pope; that would be silly.

135 posted on 08/31/2009 10:17:28 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary,conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
But for some reasons you Orthodox and Catholics seem to insist that these things simply did not happen.

Post your magisterial references right here. Papal documents and decrees of councils only; what theologians or Bible editors think is not authoritative.

136 posted on 08/31/2009 10:17:37 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Augustine said that the creation account in Genesis was a condescension to our limited understanding.

Obviously, he was influenced by 19th Century German liberal Protestants in this. As everyone knows.

The non-literalism of Augustine on Genesis is well-known to all. Unless for some reason you regard him as the sole authority on this issue I see little reason for the continual using of him as a club.

I hope you also reject such childish supernaturalisms as the virgin birth and the resurrection of J*sus, btw. Things like this simply don't happen, so they couldn't have. That's the way the reasoning goes, isn't it?

137 posted on 08/31/2009 10:18:27 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; Mr Rogers; RobbyS; Claud; wagglebee; Kolokotronis; NYer; Petronski
Then I suggest you stop berating the Fundamentalists for not accepting them as gurus. Your hypocrisy is palpable.

I "berate" Fundamentalists for not accepting the 7 ecumenical councils. I assume you were using the "royal you" to mean all Orthodox/Catholics/Apostolic Churches.

The Orthodox for example have some issues with St. Augustine. That is not a big deal because what guides the faith of the Orthodox Church is the pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils.

The Church Fathers are important guides to be sure but their works are commentaries on the scripture not scripture itself. All individual men are fallible.

138 posted on 08/31/2009 10:19:52 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
There is nothing funny about the blatant hypocrisy displayed by the Catholics and Orthodox on this thread.

If there's any humor in not knowing the difference between "apparent inconsistency" and "blatant hypocrisy" it also escapes me.

139 posted on 08/31/2009 10:20:04 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary,conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
As far as I can gather, ZC, you cannot question Real Presence, whereas on the other hand, you can question the Fathers on the creation, and due to the ungodly disorientation of the world, too many Catholics and Orthodox choose the skepticism of miracles of the world over the thought of the Fathers.

Thank you for weighing in, Pyro. I only wonder why the "real presence" gets a free pass by these naturalists.

Oh, that's right! They believe it because "those awful people" (you know, with names like "Billy Bob") find them strange and alien. If Billy Bob believes it, then we must reject it, but if Billy Bob is offended, it is obviously the most important thing in the world!

140 posted on 08/31/2009 10:21:37 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

That’s simply wrong. There are modernist Catholics who follow the liberals hook, line and sinker. Which is our problem:they conceal their real views behind a veil of pious words, while in the biblical scholarship they aim to deconstruct the Scriptures. My assessment is that the pope is closer to Machem than he is to many in the Vatican.


141 posted on 08/31/2009 10:24:55 AM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE HOMO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777; RobbyS; Claud; Kolokotronis; NYer; Petronski; Mad Dawg; Campion; annalex; Pyro7480
You must not know that the Orthodox Church only accepts the pronouncements of at least the first 7 Ecumenical Councils as infallible.

That doesn't matter around here.

Here is the preferred version of history as portrayed by most anti-Catholic/Orthodox:

In the early Church, they all read their Bibles every day. The Epistles and Gospels were widely reproduced and Saint Timothy (who some here believe wrote the Epistle addressed to him) told them what order to put everything in and then they were bound together.

On Sundays, they would eat crackers and grape juice while thinking about Jesus. Sometimes, they would jump in the water and this was called baptism, but this really wasn't that important. They ALL understood that Jesus really didn't care all that much for His mother and simply told John to look after her as an afterthought. They also knew that Jesus enjoyed mocking his Disciples, He did this by switching from Aramaic to Greek in order to confuse them.

During this time, the city of Babylon was actually the greatest threat to Christianity, not Rome. So Peter went to Babylon.

Everything was going well and everyone knew how to interpret Scripture until the year 325 when the Emperor Constantine declared himself pope and incorporated the ROMAN Catholic church. He then held a council where he said that everything the "Bible-believing" Christians was wrong and he said they were heretics.

142 posted on 08/31/2009 10:25:43 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Well, there is that little matter of Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah of Israel and God Incarnate who rose from the dead on the third day, too,

Nonsense! Rudolph Bultmann, the father of the modern Catholic/Orthodox interpretation of the Bible, said these were pre-modern fantasies that must be rejected by Modern Scientific Man. What are you, some sort of creationist?

but let's forget about that minor detail so we can join together to blame the errors of Wellhausen, Baur, von Harnack, and Darwin on the Pope of Rome.

Just what did Wellhausen, Baur, von Harnack, or Darwin teach that you disagree with?

143 posted on 08/31/2009 10:25:55 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Well, I'm not so certain, ZC. Supposedly, a large percentage of self-described Catholics don't believe in the Real Presence either. I think that the heterodox Catholics just beat up on the fundamentalists, and they really aren't much more fond of the Catholics who take their faith seriously either.

See http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/04/do-70-of-catholics-deny-real-presence.html

144 posted on 08/31/2009 10:26:46 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Post your magisterial references right here. Papal documents and decrees of councils only; what theologians or Bible editors think is not authoritative.

That being the case, why are 99.999999% of Catholics and Orthodox--and apparently 100% of those on Free Republic--evolutionists and higher critics? I assume you have a reason somewhere.

145 posted on 08/31/2009 10:28:13 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777
I "berate" Fundamentalists for not accepting the 7 ecumenical councils.

Then why do you condemn them for rejecting evolution and higher criticism?

The Church Fathers are important guides to be sure but their works are commentaries on the scripture not scripture itself. All individual men are fallible.

Well, well, well. I thought the whole purpose of the article at the head of this thread was to laugh at "fundies" for not accepting the church fathers as authoritative, but now you want to turn around and say they aren't authoritative--at least when it comes to the historicity of the "old testament," eh?

146 posted on 08/31/2009 10:31:09 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
If there's any humor in not knowing the difference between "apparent inconsistency" and "blatant hypocrisy" it also escapes me.

The Catholics and Orthodox on this thread are definitely engaging in the latter. No humor involved.

147 posted on 08/31/2009 10:32:46 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: theanonymouslurker

“15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” - 2 Timothy 3

Since I don’t know Greek, please pardon a bit of expansion here...

“profitable” comes from “o-phelimos”. The NIV translates it useful. Profitable means “1. yielding profit; remunerative: a profitable deal. 2. beneficial or useful.” Unless one wants to apply this verse to TV evangelists, I think we can skip the idea that Paul means you can make money from scripture, and go to “beneficial or useful”.

What is it useful or beneficial for? “teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”. Since doctrine is “something that is taught; teachings”, and one of the questions before us is how to correct bad doctrine, it seems scripture is useful or beneficial for the task.

And what is the result? “the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”

Adequate comes from the greek “artios”, meaning “1) fitted; 2) complete, perfect: a) having reference apparently to “special aptitude for given uses”

So James White seems on solid ground when he said (lightly edited since I don’t have all the greek fonts):

“Because Scripture is God-breathed, and hence represents God’s very voice speaking, it is profitable for the work of the ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ. We are told that the work of teaching, and rebuking, and correcting, and training in righteousness, can be undertaken due to the nature of Scripture as God-breathed. What is Paul’s point?

The Church is not left without the voice of God. For when the Church listens to Scripture, she is hearing her Lord speaking to her. The authority of the Church then, in teaching, and rebuking, and instructing, is derived, despite Roman Catholic claims to the contrary, from Scripture itself.

Now, Mr. Madrid will certainly disagree for, in addressing this very passage less than fifty days ago in a debate on this topic, he said, speaking specifically of verse 16, “I defy you to show me where it says ‘sufficient,’ in your remarks you said, when you cited II Timothy 3:16, you said, ‘sufficient,’ but that is not what the Bible teaches.” Of course, no one asserts that the term, “profitable,” in verse 16, equates to “sufficiency” When his opponents referred him to verse 17, Mr. Madrid said, “Well, 17 doesn’t say ‘sufficient’ either! 17 says, ‘that, so the one that belongs to God may be competent and equipped for every good work.’ That does not teach sufficiency. Where does the Bible teach that it is sufficient?” Is Mr. Madrid correct here? Well, let’s see.

Verse 17 continues the thought of verse 16. The fact that the Church has God’s voice always present with her in God-breathed Scripture, means the man of God, specifically here, of course, Timothy, but I doubt anyone would disagree that these comments refer to all those who belong to Christ and who are a part of His body, the Church, might be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

The first term to examine, is the adjective translated, “complete,” the Greek term, artios. We note that it is related in its root to the second term we will examine, the verb which is translated, “fully equipped,” that being the verb, evxartivzw (exartizo). Paul is here providing us with a play on words—the verb compounding and emphasizing the meaning present in the adjective.

Now, the term, artios, Vine tells us means, “fitted, complete.” Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker tell us the term means, “complete, capable, proficient.” That is, as they say, “able to meet all demands,” giving the specific citation of II Timothy 3:17 as the reference. One of the newest lexical resources, Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, uses the term, “qualified” as well. The great Greek scholar, Richard Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament, said with reference to this term, “If we ask ourselves under what special aspects ‘completeness’ is contemplated in artios, it would be safe to answer that it is not as the presence only of all the parts which are necessary for that ‘completeness’, but involves, further, the adaptation and aptitude of these parts for the ends which they were designed to serve. The man of God, St. Paul would say, should be furnished and accomplished with all which is necessary for the carrying out of the work to which he is appointed.”...

...But, Paul was not satisfied to merely state that the man of God may be, “complete,” but, he goes on to define what he means. “Fully equipped for every good work.” The term is evxartivzw, here in the perfect-passive-participial form, the prefix, ex, having, as Robertson noted, the perfective force. Vine tells us that here in II Timothy, it means “to fit out, that is, to furnish completely.” Bauer, Arndt Gingrich and Danker expressed this with the term, “equip.” Hendrickson makes reference to a related term, katarti,zw (katartizo), and it’s use at Luke 6:40, where it is translated, “fully trained.” We see here, then, that Paul teaches that the man of God is thoroughly or completely equipped for every good work. Now, what does it mean to say that one “is fully equipped,” if not to say that one is sufficient for a task?

I have recently taken up long-distance bicycle riding, and I’ve found a lovely little bike shack, a bike store where they are able to give me everything that I need, the clothes and the gloves and the helmet and the bike and the tires and the tubes, which you need a lot—they are able to fully equip me for the task of riding a bike. Does that not mean then, that they are sufficient as equippers for their task? Most definitely it does! “Let us never abandon the firm foundation of God-breathed Scripture, the Word of God, the Bible.” We further see, the Scriptures can equip the man of God for every good work. Now, Mr. Madrid, do you not believe that it is a good work to pray to Mary? Yet, the Scriptures nowhere teach this. Do you not believe that it is good to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven? Yet, the Bible does not teach this. Do you not believe that the man of God should teach, in the Church, that the pope, in Rome, is infallible in his teaching office? Yet, the Scriptures know nothing of such a concept.”

This came from a debate - both sides are available for reading here:

http://vintage.aomin.org/SolaTop.html

At a bare minimum, these verses mean that scripture teaches, reprooves, corrects and trains a man adequately for salvation and provides what he needs to live a life of good works. That sounds sufficient.

So if traditions conflict, it is they that are wrong. Unless, of course, you argue that traditions are also “God-breathed”...if so, please provide a list of what traditions, handed down by what Apostles or Prophets.


148 posted on 08/31/2009 10:33:53 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
That’s simply wrong. There are modernist Catholics who follow the liberals hook, line and sinker. Which is our problem:they conceal their real views behind a veil of pious words, while in the biblical scholarship they aim to deconstruct the Scriptures. My assessment is that the pope is closer to Machem than he is to many in the Vatican.

You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for not knowing this about you, seeing as how you join your evolutionist, higher critical Catholic and Orthodox brethren without rebuke in this little celebration of superiority.

You certainly behave like one, big happy family.

149 posted on 08/31/2009 10:35:33 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Arammi 'oved 'Avi vayered Mitzraymah vayagor sham bimtei me`at; vayhi-sham legoy gadol `atzum varav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Campion

“An argument has no authority because it comes from James White, either, yet you cite him.”

I quote his ARGUMENT. Agree with it or not, it is his argument that I’m interested in. I don’t expect anyone to be impressed by a name, only by whatever valid thought lies in the argument.

I’m pretty sure James White would reject the idea that his words have authority, apart from their compliance with scripture.


150 posted on 08/31/2009 10:38:38 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-318 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