Posted on 11/10/2009 11:07:30 AM PST by GonzoII
Further, I think the writer is being a wee bit dishonest, maybe trusting more in aggressive discourse than in humbling himself before the Truth who is our Lord.
I say this because of his seeming IMHO to overstate the confirmation secular historians provide for the historicity of Jesus.
The arguments are worth considering. The scenario in which they are presented makes me a little uneasy.
Since the speaker is making a faulty assumption based on what he believes the assembled people believe, isn't each one of them have a duty to correct him if he misstates those beliefs?
Seriously, would you let him speak for you?
To identify it all we have to do is read history with and open mind, if Christ founded a Church than it must still exist...so put an ax to that sloth and get to reading...
PS. Don't mention Jack "you know who" on the Religion Thread, the Mod get's ticked off.
Regards.
Ah, I didn't realize that. All the crazy rules are why I hardly ever post in the Religion forum.
In dealing with us feelthy papists it's important to read the fine print. We would say that one has to be a member of the Body of Christ to be "saved". Vivified by His Spirit, we are members of His Body. If you're not a member of the body, you're just not with the range of that spiritual vivification.
Then we say the ORDINARY way to become a member of the body is through Baptism. The mere saying of "Ordinary" implies that there are extraordinary ways to become a member of the Body.
In the other matter of the 7 churches, I'd just say that Paul is clear that there is one Body, and that Body is the Church. We ourselves use "church" in different ways, and sometimes try (unsuccessfully?) to clarify the different meanings with the use of upper-case letters. I don't think anything can be clearly shown from John's revelation of seven churches. I'm guessing seven dioceses, myself, before that term came into use in church-talk.
You wrote:
“And the Catholic position on the individual and his/her relationship to Christ would be what?”
I think that’s a large subject, but I would summarize it this way: All men should commit themselves to faith in and obedience to Christ for He is our Lord, Savior and the Son of God. He had the words of eternal life by which men could live forever in communion with His Father in heaven. He makes our salvation possible through His grace which He won for us on the Cross through His selfless sacrifice. He gives us that grace freely for our faith in Him and for cooperating with the works He begins in us.
“in regards to the Church?”
The Church is the Body of Christ. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Christ died on the cross not just to forgive our sins but to empower the Church with grace to carry that forgiveness to the ends of the earth (John 20:19-23). A great medieval visual for that is here: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rwb/www/teaching/engl209/pics/wound-birth.jpg
Christ in the illuminated ms. is both the sacrifice on the cross and the high priest in front of the cross as well, of course. The church is represented as a holy young person (no matter how old the Church is, grace keeps the Church young) wearling a crown of authority and holding the chalice representing the sacraments.
“Also, is there a verse that states that the foundation of truth is the Church?”
1 Timothy 3:15
Tim Staples has been to enough bible studies to know the scoop. He could just be laying things out as he experienced them in the past before he became a Catholic.
What's that saying about the "forest for the trees"..
Regards.
The bottom line is that Jesus believed in teaching through people. If He had believed in teaching through writing, He would have written the book. The canon of the Bible did not even come into existence for centuries after Jesus.
“Step One: Sola Scriptura is unreasonable.
As briefly as possible, you quickly point out that Robert’s reasoning is circular, and therefore fallacious: “You cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself.”
Nor can you prove a text is scripture because a church says so. The LDS can call the BofM scripture all they want, but not make it so.
To suggest the Chruch defines scripture is only to move the argument back one step to “Why believe the church?” Your author writes ““They needed Tradition outside of Scripture as their criterion for the canon. This criterion is not found in Scripture itself. They needed Tradition to authenticate the books in question.”
No, because that doesn’t solve the question - why believe ANY of it involves God? Nor does the next part of his argument hold water - that it is proven because the NT is historically accurate. THAT is a question non-believers would emphatically deny, just as we deny ancient writings that talk about Gods becoming human are ‘historically accurate’.
Argument 2: ““My question is this: Many of the early Christians disagreed over which books were inspired. So where do you go to get a definitive answer about the canon of Scripture if you use the principle of sola scriptura?”
A) Sola Scriptura has NOTHING to do with Canon. It says scripture has authority, but does not attempt to define scripture. The Protestant answer is that, in reality, each individual determines what he will or will not accept as scripture - just as I deny the BofM.
B) Also, the Protestant argument is to read the scriptures. If you deny them...that is your business. Frankly, if the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide you to believing them, then no one else will convince you!
“Step Three: Sola Scriptura is unbiblical.”
Hogwash. The argument that follows tries to claim that tradition is equally valid, without identifying what that tradition is. It cites 2 Tim 3: “14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”
The oral teaching Paul refers to came...from Paul! So if I have to guess, did that oral teaching agree with what Paul wrote, or is Paul referring to writings by Catholic doctors and Popes 1500+ years later? Which do YOU think it applies to? By Catholic teaching, the Magisterium “unfolds” previously unknown (unrecognized?) doctrine...so it clearly was NOT passed on verbally to Timothy in clear terms.
The author then says, ““In fact, Jesus refers to an oral tradition in Matthew 23:2-3: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’ Jesus both refers to this oral tradition about ‘the chair of Moses’ Himself, and commands the apostles to believe and obey it.”
Here is the passage, in context:
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13”But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves...
It continues on for the rest of the chapter. I’d suggest the author of your article isn’t good at recognizing sarcasm. If that is how Jesus views tradition, then His view is harsher than mine!
But lets go on...
Step 4: “Realizing you have monopolized the time at this Bible study, and looking for a graceful exit, you conclude your remarks. “If I could leave you with one last biblical text: ‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).
“The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal.”
Nice try. The scripture quoted refers to sin, not to doctrinal discussions. How are doctrinal discussions to be dealt with?
“7For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach...He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” - Titus
Notice - the overseer (Bishop) is supposed to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” - NOT unfold new teachings with time.
And he is to refute it, not by calling on his authority, but “be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it”. And how would a Bishop show he is holding on to sound doctrine and rebuke those who contradict it? Well, based on the actions of the Apostles and based on early church examples, he should be able to cite scripture - as Paul did, and as many church fathers did in response to heresy.
And why could they count on scripture? Well:
“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Even when scripture consisted of the Old Testament, it was “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”! And “All [or every - the word translates either way] scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, REBUKING, CORRECTING, AND TRAINING in righteousness. And what is the result? The man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Not some good works, but EVERY. And how could the man of God been equipped for every good work in 60 AD, when the Magisterium hadn’t “unfolded” the truth for them?
Frankly, I find these sorts of smug articles appalling, on both sides. For an equally smug article on the opposite side, read here:
http://vintage.aomin.org/MarkandTim.htm
It was a response to another article by Tim Staples, and James White (who has written some good stuff and has a number of debates between himself and Catholic apologists available on his website) proves himself capable of being just as condescending as Tim Staples was in this article.
Burning straw men (and no, I’m not talking about Purgatory...) may be fun, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
This attitude — that those who trust in Christ aren’t Christian, only those who are part of the Roman Catholic Church are real Christians — is all too prevalent among Roman Catholics here on FR. And it’s tiring.
One of the many reasons I’m not “going home to Rome” — they’ve made an idol of their particular denomination, at the expense of the glory of Christ.
Read my tagline.
As a proponent of Sola Scriptura, can you please cite the Scripture which says that the Bible is the sole authority? I can cite where the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that the wisdom of God is to be made known to the principalities and the Powers in the Heavens through the Church (Eph 3:8-10).
Logical argument... which came first, the Bible or the Church? Obviously, the Church. The Church was given by Christ and the Bible was written and compiled through Her to be understood from Her Teaching Authority.
No serious student of Scripture could argue that Christ commissioned His Apostles to write the Bible and, through It, make disciples of all the nations. No. He gave us His Bride, the Church, and told His Apostles to make disciples of all the nations by Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... the rite of Christian initiation.
Seems to me that Jesus in fact *did* read Scripture publicly in the temple, which shows that He highly valued the written word, and did instruct through it. It wasn’t the only time he referenced Scripture.
Is this the sci-fi forum?
“The Church is obedient to,... the Bible.”
Oh? The created rules the creator? Does the Latin Church teach this odd doctrine?
Straw man argument. No one could possibly suggest that the Catholic Church doesn’t read and venerate Scripture. We go through the entire Bible every three years in Liturgical readings! The question is not one of legitimacy, or even sufficiency. It is whether it is the SOLE authority on which Christ has built His Church. Since Christ gave us His Church before His return to Heaven and the Canon of the Bible wasn’t codified for centuries after, it’s pretty clear that Scripture ALONE isn’t the final authority. The Church He gave us is.
Did you mean "Let God be true, and every man a liar?"
Note: The Bible Itself even says so (as previously posted).
A meaningless assertion. The day of Pentecost is the only visible beginning of the church, and most of scripture was solidly available within 30 years of that day. The 'cannon' is only one club's opinion of what constitutes scripture.
God provided his book through the men he guided to copy and preach it.
Mt:28:18-20: "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Mt:28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Mt:28:20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Given the title of this thread..... Sola Scripture it is very strange to have Sola Scripture quoted and then claim that only one flesh on this earth has the power and authority to interpret said Sola Scripture and that ONE is not the ONE who said All power is given unto me.....
Does it mean what it says or does it mean I need a filter these thousands of years later to be told what it means and only one church has that filter?
But what is said about their doctrine that puts them in the 'good' grace is the point.
Perhaps the question would be better asked - from whence does any church derive its authority? If from someplace other than the Word, why?
John 1:1 In the beginning (means 'Genesis'1:1) was the WORD, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Now it does not say that any one flesh being is going to comprehend the volume of the book, and the Heavenly Father is in control and He through His Word showed He picks the good the bad and the ugly if it suits His purpose.
Before one jot or tittle of the so called NEW got penned Christ said, Behold I foretold you all things, cannot then be contradicted by the writers yet to come. Paul is the perfect example of one who was predestined, yet allowed for a time to do things his way. Even holding the coats of those that stoned Stephen. And rarely today do I hear Christian preachers/priest teach what Stephen taught that got himself stoned. And yet if one looks at what Paul ends up writing he uses the same teaching Stephen taught. Very few ever connect those dots. Where did Stephen get what he was teaching?
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.
