Posted on 06/09/2014 9:26:16 PM PDT by Salvation
**God has defined it ... in the scriptures.**
But where did the Scriptures come from?
From people telling the stories about happenings both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Holy Tradition>Bible
And how did they get these stories?
From what people (inspired by the Holy Spirit) told the Apostles, the evangelists, all the writers.
Radio) the hosts said that Mary was the spiritual leader in the Holy Family and Joseph “would have understood.” They repeatedly talked of how Mary instructed Jesus in spiritual matters. Yet the Bible says the MAN is the spiritual head of the family! Time and time again I’ve seen that when the Bible and Catholic tradition (the priesthood) conflict it is “apostolic tradition” that comes out on top.
Not so fast. Where in Scripture does it say that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation? And what are we to make of the following:
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)Is Baptism necessary for salvation? An important question, no? Even Protestants cannot agree on this.
Are you an elder? Have you been vetted through the elder qualifications listed in 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus, 1 Pet? And are you in agreement with our doctrinal statement? I suspect that at least some of these would disqualify you (mostly the doctrinal statement).
And by what right does anyone at your congregation have to declare themselves the church and vet those who would proclaim the gospel? And if your local congregation has this authority why did not the full church at the time of Luther and Calvin not have the authority to prevent them from preaching?
While I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, I do not follow the doctrine of “I’m right because I say so and if you don’t agree then you are killed or cast out.
Further not supporting the doctrine of “I’m Right” is the doctrine of what I said before was right at the time but now what I said prior was wrong and what I am saying now is right!!! So pay no attention to what I said previously!!!!
**Catholic tradition (the priesthood)**
The priesthood is not the definition of Holy Tradition.
From the article for the second time:
What is Tradition?
In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
??
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)”
The baptism Mark speaks of is not the baptism of water that John the Baptist did, but the Baptism of Spirit that Jesus does. When one receives the “Baptism of Spirit” they begin to perceive Jesus all the time and experience His Love at all times. It is not intellectual theory. This experience is also the real Communion. Just as Jesus and His Father became One, We become One with Jesus. And, As the Father that exists in Jesus exists in us also, as we exist within Jesus. That realization experience is the real “Communion.”
When you receive this Baptism of Spirit you begin to perceive your reality from your own soul or spirit rather than being limited to your physical senses. This is why Jesus said to His disciples when He sent them out... “The things that I do and more you too shall do in my name.”
Show me man who can do some of the things that Jesus did and I will show you a man that is Baptized in the Spirit of Jesus. There is a big difference in the baptisms.
The Bible says that by the Word of God was everything made that was made, and the Word of God will not return to Him void, but will accomplish His will. And Jesus spoke of people swearing by the gift on the altar, when it was the altar that made the gift holy. The point is that the Catholic Church has given too much unquestionable authority to the Catholic priesthood, that they are even above God’s Word and are said to be its authors, or co-authors. But God’s Word was in control. If Esther hadn’t risked her life, salvation would have come to the Jews another way. God “needs” no one. While the Bible says the Lord is the answer, and the same is said by those who follow it, the Catholic priesthood says it’s the answer. Paul also chastised a church for not maturing to be teachers by that point. That is for every believer, to be a priest of the Lord. While there are types of legitimate authority, the Catholic priesthood is like a false god.
There were clearly divisions in the early churches. They held councils to root out heresy. The creeds were created to clearly outline the necessary belief to be considered orthodox (right-glory) Christians.
Creating the creeds was not easy or straight forward. If you look at the content of the creeds, that was the entirety of Christian unity. Outside of these creeds, there was a wide variety of traditions and beliefs that they could not reconcile.
And what are we to make of the following: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
I'm sure you know of the textual issue in the ending of Mark's gospel. If the best textual scholars are unsure that Mark 16 is genuine, then I will read it as genuine but will never use Mark 16 to support any doctrinal view. If the doctrine is taught elsewhere in scripture then I will develop the evidence from that instead. Sound reasonable?
I'm sure you wouldn't espouse snake handling or drinking formaldehyde based on this chapter would you? Nor would I.
There are many many places in scripture where salvation is mentioned. Sometimes this aspect is mentioned, sometimes another is mentioned. However, since there cannot be any contradiction in scripture ... all together they must espouse one way. If in one passage it is absolutely clear what is required, and the other place is not ... then I would argue that clarity is the dictate.
I see lots of places where salvation is mentioned ... it would take lots of time to list them all. But they all taken together must espouse one way.
So, for example, what are we to make of Romans 10 in light of Mark 16?
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. (Romans 9:8-10
This passage doesn't mention baptism, which passage is correct? Mark 16 or Romans 10?
I’m already familiar with that. Just read from “the truth of the faith has been primarily given...” That’s the point. The Bible says Jesus is the foundation of faith, but the Catholic Church (priesthood) says Christ AND the Catholic Church leaders are the foundation.
Christ gave Peter and his successors to establish ONE Truth, ONE Church, ONE authority. Following the evil of Protestantism, we now have each person and every corner street pastor from Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the insufferable Joel Osteens of this world to say nothing of Jim Jones and David Koresh, as preaching the “authentic” word of God. This is the scandal that plagues modern day Christianity.
“You” say what the Bible says, and so does Rev. Al Sharpton. By these lights everyone has free license to interpret Scripture. The books in the Bible did not fall from the skies. They were authenticated by the early Church Fathers. This authority to discern this central truth continues today and until the end of time. Outside the Church, the rest of Christianity is all apostasy.
Is 1 Pet 3:21 of dubious origin as well?
Believe it? I'm not even sure I understand it!
This exemplifies one problem with the FR religious donnybrooks: Terms and language are unclear and meanings are by no means "perspicuous."
I would say that the Scriptures without IHS are not "sufficient for salvation," while, if HE will it, IHS with or without the Scriptures is sufficient. The phrase is subject to interpretation and some clarifications needs to happen before one can go into a reasoned or fruitful examination of the questions.
Dartuser says as to the one faith
God has defined it ... in the scriptures.
Is there no disagreement about WHAT the one faith IS, even among those who agree that "God has defined it in the Scriptures"?
How are disagreements to be resolved? What is to be done when disagreements persist?
What, in practical terms, in terms of who is in and who is not, in terms of who is a teacher upon whom one can rely and who is not, ... what is the difference between, "That does (or does not) comport with Scripture," and "I think that does (or does not) comport with scripture"?
In related news, it seems that it two places Paul presents various ministries, gifts, and calls. Not every gift is given to every person. It would SEEM that not all are teachers.
What then are those who are not teachers? Mustn't they be students, disciples,'those who are taught?'
How is the neophyte, the newly converted, to know to whom to go for reliable teaching -- since there is such great disagreement about teaching that there are many bodies all teaching differently at least somewhat?
We disagree about HOW to read Scripture, about what books are comprised in the term, about the ways to interpret, say, the Letter of James. One group makes a system which struggles to account for everything THIS way, and another, with the same intention and claims, comes up with a different account. BOTH groups say that the members of the other group haven't read Scripture correctly.
I don't see how the Scriptures are sufficient to resolve this.
I know.... but there is far more wisdom to the scriptures than most people realize.
Matthew 7: 6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Ask, Seek, Knock
7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds;(F) and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
Mankind has barely scratched the surface in understanding.
I know of no textual issue with that passage. Do you?
That would be one that would have to be compared with the simple command to repent and believe ... yes.
Can you explain what Peter meant by "not the removal of dirt from the body" >??
So go ahead and prove me wrong.
Check it on the Internet.
So YOU become the judge and jury of who will and won't become mature. Lol. The Catholic Church was around 1500 years before the Reformation. They will be around while the Protestants form another several thousand different denominations.
And that's okay with me. I look to God to sort it all out. He is, after all, the One who created our ability to diversify so much, as exemplified by the thousands of different Protestant denominations.
I put my trust in our Good Lord, as always. HE is the final judge.
I will try, but this will not be official Church teaching on the matter just as a disclaimer.
Here, St. Peter appears to be alluding to the water used in Baptism, as he alluded to the water of the Great Flood previously.
He is saying the water used in Baptism is not used to wash away dirt, rather to wash away Original Sin, and thus, is required for salvation.
Now, I believe a more important point you should address is the point Petrosius made previously, before your discussion with him got side tracked into the dubious nature of Mark 16:9-20, which is, "Where in Scripture does it say that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation?"
You also said in your reply, "Some of this will have to wait until later", so I would hope that question of Petrosius' will be addressed in a later post of yours.
Regards,
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.