Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Perhaps you could define what you mean when you say "denomination".
Further, perhaps a list of, let's say, 1% of those denominations. (I am certain you know the math.)
Thanking you in advance.
Good. I look forward to the point by point refutation of your full post that the sola folks should rush to make. By that, I mean pointing out fallacies in Madrid's argument, not flinging.......spitwads.
The rest of Patrick Madrid’s article, excerpted above in my post #4495
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp
And then there’s that small matter of the unity of doctrine among the apostles. If Paul had been promulgating sola scriptura in 1 Corinthians 4 he would have been in conflict with the practice of the rest of the apostles. Most of the apostles never wrote a single line of Scripture; instead they transmitted the deposit of faith orally. Did their oral teachings carry any less weight of authority than the written teachings of Paul or Peter or John?
None of the other apostles taught sola scriptura. In fact, John said, “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 John 13). Why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral Tradition over written Tradition (a preference he reiterates in 2 John 12) if, as proponents of sola scriptura assert, Scripture is superior to oral Tradition?
The already flimsy case for sola scriptura is further weakened by Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 11:2 where he praises the Christians in Corinth for holding fast to the traditions just as he had handed them on to them. It’s clear from the context that he was referring to oral Tradition because the Corinthians had as yet no New Testament Scriptures, 1 Corinthians being the very first letter Paul had sent them. Prior to this letter all his teaching had been oral.
The same is true in the case of the Ephesians to whom Paul said, “I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God” (Acts 20:27). This statement undercuts sola scriptura. Paul remained in Ephesus for over two years teaching the faith so diligently that “all the inhabitants of the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:10), yet his epistle to the Ephesians is a scant four or five pages and could not even begin to touch upon all the doctrines he taught them orally.
What’s more, if Paul had included sola scriptura among the doctrines which comprised “the entire plan of God” — especially in the sense of option three — why didn’t he simply say so? Why didn’t he tell the Ephesians, “Now that I’ve written you this letter, you can disregard my two years worth of oral teachings and consider this document to be your sole authority”? Nowhere in his epistles does Paul even hint at such a thing.
An examination of first-, second-, and third-century Church writings shows the early Christians did not believe in sola scriptura (in fact Irenaeus of Lyons [A.D. 140-202] delivered a withering attack on the notion in Against Heresies, as did Vincent of Lerins in Commonitoria [435]). It was not a subject of discussion in any early Church councils, nor was it mentioned in any of the many creeds formulated by the early Church.
Sola scriptura is the Reformation version of the emperor’s new clothes. In their attempt to evade the biblical and historical evidence of the Church’s magisterial authority the Reformers insisted on seeing in the Bible a doctrine which simply isn’t there.
You guys change the wording of the scripture to say 'and' instead of 'or'...You do that so you can claim that scripture and your Catholic tradition go together...
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
The question is; what is the tradition???
Paul is saying that we need to follow the traditions...So from a Catholic perspective, we can follow the Catholic tradition, OR, we can follow the scripture...Either one will work equally well...
But the scripture says that the spoken word and the written word will work equally well...There's a whole world of difference there...How could you guys follow the Catholic tradition without the benefit of the written word??? You couldn't...
And of course, you guys change the word of God to say 'and' instead of 'or' and pretend the scriptures and your Catholic tradition go together...But that's not what the verse says...
In order to be able to chose the traditions taught, whether they be the spoken word, or the written epistle, they MUST be the same thing...
Simple. It’s a lying keyboard.
LOL.
What a surprised. Possibly posessed, too?
Paul did not use the phrase “equally well” to explain what he was talking about, nor is that meaning implied in the verse.
_____________________________________________________________
“But the scripture says that the spoken word and the written word will work equally well...There's a whole world of difference there...How could you guys follow the Catholic tradition without the benefit of the written word??? You couldn't...”
The Scripture does not say or imply that the spoken and written word will work “equally well”.
Also, the Church's Tradition is NOT “without the benefit of the written word”. They work together. There's never any conflict between Scripture and Church Tradition.
You're right, though. We couldn't follow the Tradition without the help of God's Word in Scripture.
The whole rickety edifice of “sola scriptura” falls to the ground on just this one verse of St. Paul. That's what amazes me about the argument. It gets so convoluted, trying to prove that the WRITTEN word is the sole rule of faith, when St. Paul explicitly says the opposite.
deathbed conversions
One of my favorites is John Wayne, a life-long Presbyterian though his children were raised RC. He may have received last rites on his deathbed at the request of his children, but he was a Protestant till he died.
From Truth Miners, a Christian perspective website that debunks internet rumors and myths (http://truthminers.com/hoaxarticles/john_wayne.htm):
John Wayne was a lifelong Protestant (raised as a Presbyterian), but he was married to a Catholic (in a Catholic ceremony) and his children were raised as Catholics. According to some sources, John Wayne's son Patrick Wayne has stated that his father converted to Catholicism two days before he died.
Many believe that Wayne had converted to Roman Catholicism in 1979 shortly before his death. This was based on information by now deceased journalist Alan Dumas. When Dumas was pressed for further information, he admitted that he had invented the story... However, I now understand that Patrick Wayne claims that his father did convert as a Roman Catholic, but only two days prior to his death.
I wonder if it ever occurs to RCs that fables do not accomplish anything. The PR may go out and influence a few minds, but the truth remains, no matter how uncomfortable it is for Rome.
If Wayne received last rites as he lay dying or unconscious, who cares? God knew his heart. His Protestant heart.
So maybe it was not meant to be.
WE also claim the Bible as the anchor to windward for tradition and then 'tradition' as an anchor to windward for interpretation. That's the short and even MORE obviously inadequate version.
Well that settles it, like witch dunking the indictment of Catholicism comes down to superstition and some kind of failure of deus ex machina?
BTW - was your failure to comment on the improper use of the asterisks in the cited material an indication of your tolerance or simple an exhibition of ignorance?
By the GESTALT Calvinist therapist.
That’s an important detail to remember.
LOL.
I think Fritz Pearls might have approved.
Well, lets throw out everything written after Proverbs then.
OF course it does...It says the tradition we must follow is the spoken word OR the written word...THE TRADITION IS THE WRITTEN WORD as well as the spoken word...
Well one well-known non-catholic told me my eyewitness testimony had to be corroborated to be credible. Until then I had never seen anyone called so unreliable on the Forum. Mind you, I had seen something which this person said one would never see.
Does “Son of Mary” suit Jesus?
So again I say:
So I was starting at the beginning in hopes of understanding your thinking on this issue. I expected we would reach a point of disagreement, but I didn't know where that point was.
I probably did not understand your post. It seems to me that showing that only God is rightly called good, for example, is not competent to show that we should never say "good" about anything else. Ditto for "Rock."
But I have to have a point? I can't just ask? I have to have some forensic goal when I'm just sort of touring the front? Can't I just look around and see what things look like?
So basically the possibility that John Wayne remained a life long Protestant and did not convert disproves or trivializes the fact that countless other people HAVE converted. That’s what your post implies. It doesn’t follow.
“God knew his heart. His Protestant heart.”
How do you know that his heart was “Protestant”? Can you read souls?
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.