Posted on 12/31/2010 7:33:30 AM PST by bkaycee
And your example of this is that the Latins have developed a Marian Cult and worship Mary? Assuming for the moment that the Latins, or some of them, have developed an unfortunate, maybe even heretical Marian Cult (I happen think some have, but I know they don't worship Panagia), I can assure you that it could only be through a distortion of the consensus patrum. That happens in the West. In fact, one of the basic tenets of Protestantism which you carried with you from the Latin Church, Original Sin, is the result of a misunderstanding of the consensus patrum. It is argued that both the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility are found in the consensus patrum. We disagree. Anyway, what particular heresies do you see Orthodoxy to have fallen into on account of the consensus patrum?
I sense that you may misunderstand what the consensus patrum is since you write of "...various gatherings of theologians and their pronouncements." Do you mean Ecumenical councils, like the one that determined the Creed or that Christ is True God and True Man? The pronouncements of the Councils are part of Holy Tradition, like Scripture and the consensus patrum...and other things.
It's like the Liberals trying to ignore and/or change the constitution to be something other than what it states. They claim it doesn't address our times and is "hard" to understand, when in fact it is quite clear to those who accept it. Those who don't struggle with understanding because they simply cannot accept what it clearly is.
EXCELLENT point!
This merely highlights the weakness of the doctrine: the fact that godly, well-intentioned people can arrive at different interpretations of Scripture, means that what Scripture says, is often quite simply not self-evident. If we assume that there is a single "right" answer (as Sola Scriptura tacitly does assume), then it requires something outside of Scripture (e.g., the Holy Spirit) to tease out that correct meaning. (Indeed, one of the unhappy consequences of Sola Scriptura is that it tends to shove the Holy Spirit out of the picture. See Luke 12:10 for the possible consequences....)
Even the Gospels don't claim to represent "complete truth." For example, John writes, Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.... Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 20:30-31, 21:25)
John only claims that his gospel conveys sufficient information, not complete truth.
Those who don’t believe in Sola Scriptura believe there are doctrines that are clearly not contained in Scripture.
Unfortunately, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura falls into that category: it is not contained in Scripture either.
For a better, fuller discussion of the topic, I strongly recommend that you read N. T. Wright's excellent dissertation, How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?
>>Unfortunately, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura falls into that category: it is not contained in Scripture either.<<
You obviously have a totally different interpretation of what Sola Scriptura means then I do.
The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Obviously. I think it's heretical.
>>Obviously. I think it’s heretical.<<
Heretical? To use only Scripture? Are you kidding? Please try to explain that.
You didn’t even get out of the gate before you added and twisted to what the poster said, which they didn’t say. Rather you took a shot to indirectly make a statement...”It’s not a matter of Holy Tradition being superior to Scripture”...which they never stated. And somehow Scripture didn’t warrent a ‘Holy’ just tradition. Humm-mmm...very interesting.
Further... you twisted/reversed the order the poster used giving scripture second place to tradition. Not to mention adding ‘Holy’ to tradition should somehow make tradition more than it is. Amazing.
There is another who did likewise in the garden with Eve.
Strawmen.
The first and last resort of someone who has no argument against what was posted.
Great article.
It goes to show just how far Catholicism has gone from its (reputed) roots.
So, are Catholics who deny that sola Scriptura is valid, not REALLY true practicing Catholics? They certainly are denying the teachings of the (reputed) early church fathers.
For inquiring minds on “strawman” debaters.....
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.[1]
2.Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3.Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
from Wiki dee
This is going to get interesting...
BTW...HAppy New Years Fellow Freepers!
Tell you what pal, why don't you ask wf, the person I to whom was responding, whether or not he believes that I intentionally misrepresented what he said. He and I have discussed theological matters for years here and have never, to the best of my knowledge, ever had anything less than complete respect for each other. If he thinks I intentionally misrepresented what he said, it will be the first time he thought that. "Not to mention adding ‘Holy’ to tradition should somehow make tradition more than it is. Amazing."
Holy Tradition, as opposed to tradition, is a term used by The Church to designate something other than simple tradition. You may disagree but I do know how to use the words my people have used for at 1800 years.
"There is another who did likewise in the garden with Eve."
Nonsense.
Please provide a definition of "house church". Is it your assertion that because houses were used for meetings that they were autonomous?
So, are Catholics who deny that sola Scriptura is valid, not REALLY true practicing Catholics? They certainly are denying the teachings of the (reputed) early church fathers.
It certainly is the official position of the Roman church.
True Catholics (universal) would read and obey the written scriptural warning not to ADD to the Word.
Offcourse, not everything the church fathers wrote was scriptural, but their position on scripture as being the only infallible source of doctrine is clear.
Why not post a thread about how the Scriptures came to be and ping me to it. This thread was started about Sola Scriptura and it's history.
It seems that every thread that involves the RC's or EO always falls back to the big lies that they put the Scriptures together, that the early Christian Church was under their control, and that they possess secret knowledge "tradition".
No problem, in all the years we've argued I think we've tried to be accurate.
Scripture is part of Holy Tradition.
Embracing this is where your church began to separate from Biblical Christianity. Once other things, in this case tradition, are believed to be of equal authority with Scripture the corruption of Scripture begins. In fact in this case you're saying your "holy tradition" is of greater authority.
I tend to believe it is reflexive rather than intentional. When they have to defend their denial of Scripture as THE rule of the faith it's best to change the discussion points.
I would agree.
Kolo I haven't seen you on the RC propaganda threads lately it has become the regular practice there to rewrite the comments of Evangelicals. It has become so common that it is now a trigger point.
Holy Tradition, as opposed to tradition, is a term used by The Church to designate something other than simple tradition.
I wish the EO and the RC's could see how easily they've been manipulated just by the use of the term "holy". There is nothing "holy" in going outside God's revelation to us and making up your faith as you go.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Start with the Bible it's always the best source. Also, Phillip Schaff has written a very solid history called, "History of The Christian Church" and Francis Sullivan wrote "From Apostles to Bishops".
If you have a comment about why Scripture should not be the sole rule of the faith I'm interested in hearing it.
I’ll have to respond to this and your other post later; perhaps this evening. We’re about to have a house full of the priest’s family, Greeks, Lebanese, Russians, Copts and two Yankee Orthodox couples and their kids; lots of good food, wine and conversation!
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.