Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
The term "Apostolic succession" does not appear in Scripture, but neither does trinity for that matter. However, it is well documented and obvious when Scripture is read without Protestant filters.
It may be well documented in the self-serving papers of Rome, but it conspicuously absent from the pages of Scripture right along with Unicorns, Leprechauns, and Bigfoot. Your group may wish to live in a fantasy world, but believers in Christ hold onto reality.
You need to actually read, every word and word choice, every comma, every setting of Scripture in the context of the entirety of Scripture instead of adhering to the "grid" of Protestant eisegesis. Claiming the supremacy of Scripture and then ignoring significant parts of it is disingenuous at best.
“You receive the body of the Lord with special care and reverence lest the smallest crumb of the consecrated gift fall to the floor. You should receive the word of God with equal care and reverence lest the smallest word of it fall to the floor and be lost.” - Origen
Origen is another of your patsies worth no more than a quote from you. Read the Book itself, my FRiend. It is not there, nor are sacerdotalism, papalism, the sacraments, cathedrals, mariolatry, the pope mobile, the pointy hats, the gold chains, the prada shoes, the candles, or any of the other sick and twisted doctrines from hell that Rome propagates.
Yes, “faith alone” does appear once in scripture.
Preceded by “not by”.
Neither sola fide nor sola scriptura are scriptural.
So, you too, have followed traditions - only a different one.
If you are so naive to think that some cliche’ you heard from an old man in a bathrobe and pointy hat makes the entire testimony of the Scriptures go away, you are in far worse shape than I thought. No traditions here, my
FRiend, just the message of the Word of God. But, you are welcome to continue to follow men.
If you follow the unscriptural sola scriptura and sola fide, you’re following a tradition of man, whatever he happened to be wearing.
The main point being if you’re basing you theology/doctrine on the doctrine of scripture alone, you’re bolloxed at the start, since scripture alone negates itself.
If you are looking for a food fight you won't get one from me. Hooting, chest thumping and feces throwing is how lower primates settle territorial disputes, it is not how Christians are suppose to behave when discussing the Word. I forgive you and will be here if or when you are ready for a civil discussion.
If you are looking for a food fight you won't get one from me. Hooting, chest thumping and feces throwing is how lower primates settle territorial disputes, it is not how Christians are suppose to behave when discussing the Word. I forgive you and will be here if or when you are ready for a civil discussion.
You may wish to get your main points straight.
No food fight from here, my FRiend. Just explaining to you folks the way Rome has enslaved you with the chains of men. That is what makes their doctrines sick and twisted. We invite you to swim back over the Tiber...if you can.
thanks for your reply.
Can you refute the main point?
No enslavement here. Although a cradle Catholic I admit I was poorly catechized by my Church and parents. In the 60's I started from a position of agnosticism and doubt> I read the major religious works of the other world religions with them the entire bible and the Creeds. From them was able to reject paganism and heresy and assemble the Catholic belief system.
It comes down to understanding and accepting my limitations in an infinite universe. I do not look at Scripture, dogma and doctrine with an egotistic eye that if it doesn't make sense to or compliment me it must be wrong. I look at Scripture, dogma and doctrine with the skeptical eye of a humble student and pilgrim and see what 2,000 years of intellectual giants have also said about it before I "obey" and serve my Lord. Time and again I have learned that where I have difficulties the problem has been with me and my limited understanding, not the Church.
Study and prayer have always lead me to a position that is in harmony with the Catholic Church and the Truth. I look beyond the sinners and concentrate on the saints.
Does than mean that I still do not have or will not have difficulties in the future? Absolutely not, but it also liberates me to question and challenge freely in pursuit of the truth. I have reason to trust the Holy Spirit working through the Church and not fallible and errant humans like you and me.
Certainly: If you follow an organization (error #1), an organization which does not comport with the Scriptures it claims to have delivered (error #2), and that organization substitutes a message which calls you back to the Law (error #3 - #1,679 approx.), you have followed an empty shell. We shall see when this is all over if that was merely an exercise in futility or a fatal error.
Well, with all due respect, the "intellectual giants" of Judaism held a view of the Law for 1400 years that Jesus refuted as wrong. Perhaps that is a model you should inculcate into your pursuit. Read the text itself...it does not contain the message of Rome.
Thanks for your reply. However, before we compare authority we would first have to recognize and identify yours, since it is not scripture alone.
My main point was:
“… if you’re basing you theology/doctrine on the doctrine of scripture alone, you’re bolloxed at the start, since scripture alone negates itself.”
The corollary being that sola scriptura is a tradition.
And, therefore, you are following that tradition, whether it be from an organization, person or yourself.
You could either identify where you get or derive your authority or refute the main point.
You have developed the “doctrine” of sola scriptura.
That is not a doctrine, my FRiend. Any more than breathing is a doctrine. We have been given the Scriptures, we read them, and find that the doctrines of Rome do not appear in them. End of argument.
That is a falsehood that borders on blasphemy. In the the pedagogy or "evolution of revelation", the Old Testament was never wrong. It was right until Jesus fulfilled it, and then it was no longer right for us.
Thanks for your reply.
However your reply assumes the doctrine sola scriptura: Your conclusion is valid only if sola scriptura is valid.
Which it is not since it negates itself.
You would still need to refute the main point in order for your conclusion to be accepted as proven or true.
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.