Posted on 04/14/2011 9:21:51 AM PDT by marshmallow
Perhaps you were thinking of Soliton.
Those were the days......
"Whoo Hoo FR!!! Way to go!"
Yes, it would seem quite appropriate for a protestant to be cheering that. Protestantism thrives on superstition.
Born Againers are Conservative? Submission is not Conservatism.
It is a completely foolish and baseless bit of propaganda. I can't imagine why they've decided to propagate it.
We agree on much, primarily that Christianity is not solely personal. It involves the community of the Church also as regards proper doctrine and use and interpretation of scripture.
with guidance from his local body of believers, also known as the Church.
Don't we have the same problem here with differing interpretations, on the local level? Do I go to the local Catholic Church or the local Calvinist Church? Are we not back to every individual tasked to work out what is the true Christian faith? On the practical level, this is what we have, and the Body of Christ is, again, hopelessly divided, can never be One as our Saviour prayed and therefore, I believe, instituted His Church.
I believe that this apostolic authority remains with the original Apostles' writings in dealing with our issues.
This is no solution, we are back to arguing differing interpretations of their writings.
What I disagree with is the idea that the authority of the Apostles over the first Churches was passed down to others after the Apostles deaths.
This is the scriptural and historical fact however. From the Council of Jerusalem to the Councils which settled the canon to those which argued and determined the Holy Trinity and Christ's Human and Divine nature.
Did Arian and Nestor have equal authority to the apostolic bishops in council? They argued from scripture as well. If the Apostolic Church did not have authority passed down, why isn't the Catholic Faith Arianism or Nestorian in doctrine. (Note that in some non-Catholic Christians we still find these heresies.)
So at which point does the Church's authority become illegitimate? Wherever you pick, why not sooner - or later.
As I can find no evidence within their writings to support the passing down of their authority, I reject the Roman Catholic view of their Apostolic authority.
And this is, again, according to your interpretation. Personally, I cannot read scripture without seeing the Church, with authority, throughout. Paul argues his authority many times. He argues scripture, but his authority is the difference, why he can correct others and not vice-versa.
We see this apostolic authority in scripture and where scripture stops, we see it continue in history of the Church Fathers. We would have to believe they made a grievous scriptural error from the beginning of the Church in order for your view to be correct.
Thanks again; I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with passion but also with respect.
The vatican library is full of this stuff. Most Priests ad bishops and various "other" catholic writers throughout the years add their own take on Mary as well. Not unusual at all to see volumes of writers to scroll by on these threads. I have noted the authosrs mention MAry and others with little reference to scripture. It's as though they design what the standard needs to be and then locate scripture to twist and apply according to that belief.
That doesn’t answer the question. Which is it? Are we wrong for believing Scripture alone, or are we following teachings that don’t have Scripture to back them up?
That was the accusation.
I’ve heard that before out of the mouths of evolutionists and atheists.
It’s too bad that people who claim to believe in God think the Bible is superstition.
There are many extra-biblical protestant beliefs, even from those who claim to be sola scriptura followers.
It was those beliefs to which I was referring.
I'm not sure which question you are referring to. Sola scriptura is a flawed belief. Those who believe sola scriptura, e.i., nothing except whats in the bible, fail from the beginning because sola scriptura is not in the bible. You can't have an extra-biblical that anything extra-biblical is evil.
And I'm accusing you of nothing. I have no idea where you pulled that from.
There is no biblical justification, however, for things like, for example, snake-charming.
I asked Metmom which was more important to her, the Constitution or the Bible.
After a few attempts, she grudgingly admitted the Christian teachings or something like that were more important.
agreed
There is no that scripture is more important than the constitution ...I doubt metmom had to consider that question... so now one for you which is more importaant to you the constitution or the pope?
One question on this thread..were the chuch fathers infallible?
Catholic Church teachings.
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.