Posted on 01/07/2012 6:00:19 PM PST by rzman21
You know, I doubt anyone is really interested in reading that long, pot-stirring spam.
Thanks for the ping!
For that matter, why is Genesis 1-11 considered a parable or metaphor or not to be taken literally, when the rest of Genesis is considered a historical text and taken literally?
Either the whole book should be taken literally or not. No switching interpretive styles midstream.
Why not just "gravitate" closer to Jesus Christ...
It’s rare I read his stuff. It appears to me the poster isn’t interested in more than getting his “stuff” out there and then standing on his perch preaching about it on one from or another. And his posts go on for miles and miles.....why not a link?
Why not just “gravitate” closer to Jesus Christ...
>>I did. Thank you.
As to the subject at hand - sola scriptura - Augustine was a staunch believer in the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. He stated:
This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.(NPNF1, Vol. 3, Augustin, On Faith and the Creed 2.2).
As well as:
I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly (FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, Letter 147,Chapter 2, p. 171).
But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely, of those which in the Church are called canonical, it must be believed without any reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief (FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, Letter 147, Chapter 4,p. 173).
There is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind (NPNF1, Vol. 4, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XI, Section 5).
This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other (Ibid., Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XIII, section 5).
For, as regards any writing professing to come immediately from Christ Himself, if it were really His, how is it not read and acknowledged and regarded as of supreme authority in the Church, which, beginning with Christ Himself, and continued by His apostles, who were succeeded by the bishops, has been maintained and extended to our own day (Ibid., Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XXVIII, section 4–5).
Now, who is it that submits to divine Scripture, save he who reads or hears it piously, deferring to it as of supreme authority (Ibid., Vol6, Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Book I, Chapter XI).
You really should not brush off all the scholarly work of William Webster, like BlueDragon stated, his articles are well researched and well verified. For more on the subject of Sola Scriptura, see http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html.
Mr. Armstrong, I guess, isn't biased? William Webster has some very good reasons for leaving the Roman Catholic Church. He goes into those reasons Here.
I stand on the side of creationism with you, Zionist Conspirator!
Ask your self. Did you go to his site then interpret from there. Because it seems if it is this easy why not go to the original text. Why do you need him. Remember he is isolating verses. You have to see the whole text at times to get where Augustine is coming from.
Did you read when I posted that Augustine believed in the literal presence by his writings. Then this Scholar says not clear. Well is this clear.
AUGUSTINE
“Christ was carried in his Own Hands when, referring to His Own Body, he said, ‘This is My Body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that Body in His Hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
To say the least I believe it is out of context. I believe He is addressing the writings among equals Bishops and priests who will then read it to the congregation or it was meant for them alone.. Remember Faith comes from Hearing and Hearing the word. Why is this stated? The authority of the apostolic laying on of hands from the Holy Spirit which has been going on for two thousand years. I witness this on ordination of priests. It is explained at that event for two thousands years it has been done. Every priest of any stature at the time lays hands on other priests.
Faith is never stated by reading and reading the word. It is from authority passed down. Yes, you can get insight and the Holy Spirit wisdom as a lay believer. But do you think you have totally authority to declare what it reads. Remember Christ warned the Pharisees because they declared they knew it well it will go bad for them. If they did not the burden would not be there. You are stating you are in the know to teach when you state it reads this not this. Much responsibility is required for teachers and leaders as the epistles(new testament letters) state. The apostles point this out.
Also notice this word "Canonical." The New testament was decided from many writings that were weeded out by the the authority of the church at a council.Which means by the authority of the church and what it means there from the church. Notice Augustine brings it up with this word Canonical. Which means among equals in authority in the church. Look again here:
"This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority(NOTICE THAT WORD AGAIN CANONICAL SCRIPTURE), and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves."(NPNF1, Vol. 3, Augustin, On Faith and the Creed 2.2).HE IS SHOWING THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH AGAIN. It IS DECIDED BY THE CHURCH.
I do not want you to depend on my authority( Meaning Singular), so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical(Group decided) Scriptures, if you do not see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly (FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, Letter 147,Chapter 2, p. 171).
But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely, of those which in the Church are called canonical, it must be believed without any reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief (FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, Letter 147, Chapter 4,p. 173).
There is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind (NPNF1, Vol. 4, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XI, Section 5). NOTICE HE IS EMPHASISING THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESION OF AUTHORITY FROM CHRIST(Totally Catholic otherwise why bring it up if scripture stands alone by itself.)
This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other (Ibid., Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XII-HE STILL MEANS FROM THE CHURCH HE DOES NOT HAVE TO STATE IN EVERY INSTANCE. IT IS LIKE HE IS HOLDING IT IN FRONT OF THEM BY HIS AUTHORITY. IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY WHY ALL THE COLLECTIVE WHOLE OF WRITINGS POINTING OUT A CHURCH NOT JUST SCRIPTURE.
For, as regards any writing professing to come immediately from Christ Himself, if it were really His, how is it not read and acknowledged and regarded as of supreme authority in the Church, which, beginning with Christ Himself, and continued by His apostles, who were succeeded by the bishops, has been maintained and extended to our own day (Ibid., Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XXVIII, section 4–5).HERE HE IS SHOWING THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. Apostolic SUCCESSION Brought UP AGAIN. HE IS SHOWING JUST NOT ANYBODY CAN READ ONLY ALONE WITHOUT THE CHURCH.
Now, who is it that submits to divine Scripture, save he who reads or hears it piously, deferring to it as of supreme authority (Ibid., Vol6, Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Book I, Chapter XI).YOU READ THIS AS A COLLECTIVE WHOLE WITH THE OTHER WRITINGS OTHERWISE WHY DOES HE BRING THE CHURCH UP WITH SCRIPTURE IN THE OTHER WRITINGS. HE IS NOT GOING AGAINST HIS OTHER WRITINGS. He is showing that the Priest(Authority) reads it and LayBelievers hear it from Authority. It was too expensive to own a scroll at that time for a common believer.
Everything is In My humble opinion as a catholic of course.
The footnotes are pretty powerful, too. See #34, #38 & #39
Viva Voce!
But will they (the Roman prelates) now be honest about things, drop all pretense, ex-communicate themselves (as they should) and and just go ahead and start the church of Mary, and be done with it? Leave Jesus out of it this time, and quit polluting His good name, and the Gospel?
Naah. There are competing anathema(!) with the later one not only making it all ok, but mandatory even.
The costumed charade will continue.
Letter 54 (A.D. 400) As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of TRADITION, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e...Read More[Read More]
For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity or superstitious vacillation of Some Who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture(WHICH IS ONLY HEARD THROUGH THE CHURCH ), or by the Tradition of the universal Church(FULL DECISIONS DECIDED BY AUTHORITY) or by their manifest good influence on manners raise questions, it may be, from some crotchet of their own, or from attachment to the custom followed in one's own country, or from preference for that which one has seen abroad, supposing that wisdom is increased in proportion to the distance to which men travel from home, and agitate these questions with such keenness, that they think all is wrong except what they do themselves(DEFINITELY SHOWS NOT TO MAKE OWN DECISIONS ON FATH alone without Church or read it alone?).
OF Course IMHO.
Oh, I get it...Mother Nature...Mother Church...
But Christians don't call it nature...We call it creation...
One thing a person gets from reading those huge posts that read like a legal brief typically intended to leave the common man reliant on those who wrote it is that Jesus picked the wrong men to follow and be His apostles. The common lowly fishermen are certainly not the type the CC would deem educated or sophisticated enough to be put in those positions. It’s obvious that the CC would think the Pharisees would have been a much better group to choose from.
Compare that long winded diatribe with the simple answer Paul gave the Jailor.
“believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved – and your house.”
Do Catholics think Jesus misspoke when He said “suffer the little children”?
Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Isn't that the truth!....there's several who just pour volumes of someones elses work across the threads which is rarely informative or interesting.....but of course the purpose is to "enlighten" others rather than actually seek the truth or debate a matter using their own opinion, instead they get on their soap box to elaborate and gain the attention they are seeking.
I have wondered how many are actually wannabee Priests or Ministers who didn't make the cut?
It looks like Webster chose a synthetic form of Christianity.
Pharisees. Talking about yourself?
You can selectively quote from St. Augustine all you like, but a broader reading of his works shows that he upheld the role of Tradition and ecclesiastical authority.
“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE...The epistle begins thus:—’Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.’ Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not beleive Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to beleive none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not beleive it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to beleive what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus. But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not beleive? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?”
C. Epis Mani 5,6
“Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it”
Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis
“To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you”
C. Cresconius I:33
“It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true”
Sermon 117:6
“If therefore, I am going to beleive things I do not know about, why should I not believe those things which are accepted by the common consent of learned and unlearned alike and are established by most weighty authority of all peoples?”
C. Letter called Fundamentals 14:18
“Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will seperate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved..?”
C. Julian 1:7,34
“The authority of our Scriptures, strenghtened by the consent of so may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and councils, is against you”
C. Faustus 8:5
“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH”
Trinitas 4,6,10
About 600AD seems to be when most of the tangential doctrines arose in the Catholic Church which have caused the most distraction from Bible based doctrine.
>>Such as?
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.