Posted on 02/08/2011 11:08:38 AM PST by Gamecock
Origen believed in Universal Salvation just as the Scripture alone teaches.
I'm not saying they didn't exist. I'm saying they weren't canonized for "all" the Church until centuries after they were written.
John 21:25 - “”And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” The Bible Itself declares that it doesn’t contain everything.”
... I don’t think anyone here believes the Bible contains ALL truth ever spoken by Christ or ALL truth about God. That appears to me to be a straw-man argument.
...The Apostle Paul says all Scripture is inspired by God. So while the Bible doesn’t contain ALL truth or ALL words of Christ, ALL the words it contains are inspired of God. As such, they contain specific instructions for the Church and for believers.
“Ultimate authority - What is ‘the pillar and ground’ of the Truth?” Scripture points to the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth! Why? Because Christ didn’t come to give us a book to read (no matter how Good it is), He Himself declared that He came to give us His Church. His Church can not contradict Scripture... but it does have teaching authority to explain and expound.”
... To clarify, friend, again it is the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of God and writing to a local Church, instructs Timothy about how to act in the household of God. He also refers to the church as the pillar and ground of truth. Paul affirmed the crucial role of the universal church as the support and bulwark of truth — not the source of God’s truth. His words should not be stretched beyond this.
“Saying that the early post-Apostolic Church followed Sola Scriptura is laughable on its face to anyone who has actually read Scripture.”
... I’ve read Scripture and I disagree with what you wrote after this.
“The Apostles were never commanded by Christ to write down what they had learned for the ages to come.”
... The Apostle Paul says they were inspired by God to do so.
“They didn’t bring copies of Bibles for every hotel, they brought the traditions given them by Christ (2 Thess 3:6).
... In response, Paul, again, does not make tradition equal to Scripture. He makes a simple point: those who are living unruly lives are not following traditions (example) demonstrated by himself, who he uses as an example in verses 7-10. There were not mysterious traditions here. He specifies what the example actually was.
... Again, it seems to me a straw-man argument you are making here. There was no NT to carry. As Apostles, who were physically there and were the foundation of the Church, they spoke with Christ’s authority before the Canon of Scripture was formed. They did use God’s Hebrew Scriptures to show Christ fulfilled prophecy as Messiah.
“In every town, they preached first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. Why? Because the Jews had their Scriptures to verify the truth of their teaching.”
...They did this because they were commanded to do it exactly in that order - “to the Jew first and then to the Greek.”
“Lastly, if the Scriptures as understood by the Apostles and their successors (the Old Testament) were their only basis for understanding Christ and His Kingdom... by what authority did the Apostles pronounce that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised (Acts 15)?”
... Old Testament Noachide Law AND the simple fact that THEY were Apostles who are the Scripture says: “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Eph 19-20)
... They were chosen by Christ personally to become the foundation upon which God’s household was built.
blessings to you,
ampu
That is the verse (Timothy 3:15) used as a footnote in the original text used as the very first reference in the posted article. Yet, here it is in something supposed to help "prove" the exact opposite of what the Word says!
I don't know if anyone else has had a prayer for guidance answered with a virtual slap in the face, but it's a surprise of sorts when it's so obvious an answer.
Thanks for posting responses to such stuff around here. You and others who do so have been a big help to me and a big boost to my faith as well.
Regards and God Bless You
What is really amusing is the unmitigated audacity these sola scriptura types exhibits in criticizing the LDS take on history. The sola scriptura ilk's grasp of history compliments and parallels any of the cults as Scientology or Jehovah Witnesses types. Thus the big question should be:
Who has a more accurate grasp of historical reality
A- the author of this article
B- communist revisionist historians
C- secular humanistic relativists
D- Islamists
E-None of the above
It would be a mistake to think that the only people reading this thread are the poster and the usual suspects.
Who knows who may come by here by chance and read something to their edification..........
And minutes later Jesus called him a devil... actually a close reading of the scripture affirms the opinion of Augustine
Furthermore, the attempt to characterize various explanations of the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else, and as "misinterpretations" unknown to anyone before the 16th century is refuted by Augustine: ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.
Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.
and given the Keys to the Kingdom. This is a particular reference of authority harkening back to the House of David as recorded in Isaiah 22:22. There were other ministers with other authorities but the Prime Minister had the Keys as sign of his special office among them.
Christ gave the keys to PETER not to the RCC.. There is no scripture that implies that the keys are transferable ..
Keys are only good for one thing..to open something that has been locked.
The Keys were given to Peter after Peter had made a profession of faith ...That is what the keys opened .
Peter opened the profession of faith to the Jews on Pentecost and to the gentiles when he was sent to Cornelius . the Keys were no longer needed because Peter left the door wide open
Consider something else. There is one Apostle throughout the Apostolic age that consistently speaks for the rest, who is discussed more than the rest and about whom the greatest amount is known... that man is Peter. God doesn't generally waste our time pointing out non-essentials
Actually the foundation of the church appears to have been a collaborative effort.. where we see that when Paul sought approval of his ministry
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
However like all the church. he had the OT and the writing of Paul
Thank you for the laugh. Do you honestly believe that 1) the other Apostles relied on Paul's writings to fill in the gaps of their lacking theology and 2) "all" the church relied on his writings contemporarily rather than primarily the addressees?
My friend. 1st if we consider the apostolic letters to be scripture, were they not scripture (the inspired word of God) to those that read and distributed them?
Have you EVER read the NT? Peter considered Pauls writings scripture
2nd Peter 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Let's just say for a moment that your suppositions are true. What would the Church get from Paul's writings? They would get that they are to hold fast to the traditions he taught them (Acts 20:35; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Cor 15; 2 Thess 3:6), the truth is given to leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5), and the centrality of the Eucharist (1 Cor 15) for starters... things generally refused by Protestants.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
We disagree on the reading of those scriptures in context.. which does not surprise me, because Catholics are generally scripturally ignorant .
I will say this All the traditions that needed to be observed,were completed when the last of the NT scriptures were written ... we no longer need the traditions of men ...
I have oft noted that if Peter had gone to Rome and established a church there, or taken a leadership position he would have been disobedient to the mission God had given to him , which was the apostle to the Jews.
If Peter became the Bishop of Rome he was disobedient to God and instead of completing his mission to the Jews, he went to the gentiles.
In all charity, in rejecting your Catholic faith, you have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
My friend.. you accept the word of Rome on faith alone..I will choose Christ ...
They were not "canonized" until TRENT ..and that council is recognized only by the Roman church
The Apostle Paul says all Scripture is inspired by God. So while the Bible doesn’t contain ALL truth or ALL words of Christ, ALL the words it contains are inspired of God. As such, they contain specific instructions for the Church and for believers.
Yes... but does it contain ALL instructions for the Church and for believers?
Paul affirmed the crucial role of the universal church as the support and bulwark of truth — not the source of God’s truth.
I didn't even come close to suggesting this. The Church doesn't "make stuff up" as some Protestants accuse. It reflects, reviews, researches and listens to the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to expound and deepen our understanding of revealed truths. It is a model shown in Scripture used by the Apostles.
I appreciate your reasoned conversation. It was sorely lacking before you showed up. God bless.
Yes they are and they refuse to go away.
Pgyank,
I appreciate the interaction.
We may sometimes disagree about some things, but I appreciate your faith in the Savior :-)
Ampu
What puzzles me is why the author seeks legitmacy by making a claim that can easily be disproven. I thought the premise of the Reformation was that Rome had erred (which I assume would also include certain statements by certain fathers) so why look for validation from the very source you claim had erred?
Why not just say the fathers are in error for not agreeing with Sola Scriptura and though they’re opinion on other matters is to be respected they are not infallible. We Catholics do this when the fathers do not agree with infallible teaching. Protestants can do it too. Just use the Scripture alone as the source of infallible teaching.
Apologies for the errors in the above. Way too tired for this.
Blessings back at ya :-)
Actually, a Presbyterian author named Keith Mathison has explored what you’re talking about calling it “solo” scriptura, not the “sola” scriptura believed by the Reformers.
Luther, Calvin et al. believed that there were all kinds of authorities binding on an individual outside of scripture (ex. the creeds, catechisms, governments, oaths given, even natural law, etc.) ...
NONE of these however, was inerrant or a FINAL authority, which was reserved for the Bible alone. As long as these rightful authorities did not contradict the bible, a Christian should, definitely, obey rightful authorities. Where a Christian does NOT have to obey authorities is where those authorities break God’s law.
I’d say for example that a court employee MUST obey his orders to sign dutifully filled out marriage licenses. However, since government is outside of God’s law in certifying homosexual “marriage,” a Christian court employee is obligated NOT to sign such (lying) documents—even if he or she is disciplined or fired for that...
If Christians actually followed through on that, the social consequences would be huge (no “just following orders” excuse!), and we’d stop “gay marriage” in its tracks—just by obeying God’s law, rather than man’s.
We never HAVE to violate God’s law, some unjust governments though will make us suffer for keeping it, however.
The Church is adapting, changing and growing even today.
There you go again.....quoting non-Catholic sources about Catholic facts.
I have never heard this before: **The Council of Trent denied the sufficiency of Scripture**
And minutes later Jesus called him a devil.
Peter's weaknesses don't invalidate his witness. In some ways, it makes it evident. If Christ has chosen St James, for example... one of the Sons of Thunder... the Church may have rallied around him as a standard-bearer and suffered great disruption at his death. One theologian I read years ago pointed out that Christ chose the weakest among men so that He might build His Church, not man's church, and it would carry on through the centuries precisely because it wasn't strong men making it great.
Regarding St Augustine... I try to research challenges before I respond... but I absolutely can't find an electronic copy of Augustine's Sermon 229. It may be limited to what you have quoted or it may be part of a larger argument that actually tells a greater story... I don't know. My experience of him is as a humble man and devout servant of Christ. He was a bishop of the Church and one of her greatest "Fathers." What you have quoted from him is also found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We see no contradiction in recognizing the statement of faith as rock AND Peter as Rock. That Augustine recognized both truths at different times in his life is interesting. As one of the greatest fathers of the Church, it stands to reason that his work is best understood by the Church... or will you now accept the rest of the doctrines he championed?
Christ gave the keys to PETER not to the RCC.. There is no scripture that implies that the keys are transferable ..
Again, I refer you to Isaiah 22:22. The Keys represent the office and in this passage, they are indeed being transferred!
Keys are only good for one thing..to open something that has been locked.
If you accept a Scriptural interpretation, they are also a sign of authority. The Keys belong to Christ. It is His House, His Throne. Just as Christ said that all authority in Heaven has been given to Him, so is He bestowing authority to His Earthly Kingdom. This is the same model given by King David to his royal household.
Peter opened the profession of faith to the Jews on Pentecost and to the gentiles when he was sent to Cornelius . the Keys were no longer needed because Peter left the door wide open
My mouth is literally hanging open at this assertion...
I concede your recitation of 2 Peter 3:16... I wrote without considering carefully enough my choice of words.
We disagree on the reading of those scriptures in context.. which does not surprise me, because Catholics are generally scripturally ignorant .
That was rude and uncalled for in our current discussion.
I will say this All the traditions that needed to be observed,were completed when the last of the NT scriptures were written ... we no longer need the traditions of men ...
Until the advent of the printing press, men only had the Church as Christ's voice in the world. Except that men attended Sunday Mass, they did not hear Scripture since it was a scarce resource. Technology changed that in the 1400's... but certainly it is ludicrous to assume that there was no valid universal church until Gutenberg finished Christ's work for Him...
My friend.. you accept the word of Rome on faith alone..I will choose Christ ...
Dear Lady, I accept the word of the Church who points only to Christ.
there is no more illogical doctrine than that of sola scriptura.
for it to be true, we would first need an infallible canon of Scripture. since the Scriptures themselves do not tell us infallibly what the canon is, we only can truly rely on an infallible Church to define the canon. the Church using Sacred Tradition. so right away the doctrine falls apart.
secondly, the Apostles not only did not teach or practice sola scriptura, they specifically taught the opposite as Paul instructs in Thessalonians.
finally, while i appreciate the attempt to point to the Catholic Fathers to support sola scriptura, since the Bible doesn’t teach it ( pretty ironic, eh? ) as a previous post shows, the Fathers did not teach sola scriptura.
of even greater irony, all the Catholic Fathers listed held to the Catholic Faith, including:
baptismal regeneration
real presence in the Eucharist
the Mass as a Sacrifice
one visible Church
the “apocrypha” as Scripture
infant baptism
prayers to saints
prayers for the dead
veneration of Mary
apostolic succession
the same people who point to these great saints to support this unbibilical doctrine they did not teach, are the first to accuse today’s Catholics who hold these very same doctrines as unsaved, heretics and idol worshippers.
as alanis morissette said “isn’t it ironic”
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.