Posted on 09/24/2012 9:19:51 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
"And make no mistake, the Catholic Church is disruptive. It is audacious and confrontational, sucker-punching and line-in-the-sand drawing. Like the Lion Aslan from C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, it is not a tame Church, and will make no promise not to devour and discomfit its subjects as they partake of its life-giving water, causing them to constantly bend the knee and cede their worldly wisdom to the foolishness of the cross. In the words of Aslan to Jill, who expressed fear about letting down her guard to drink from the water by which he stood, “There are no other streams.” Or the words of Peter to Jesus when asked if the Twelve would forsake Him because of His difficult and demanding message, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
(Excerpt) Read more at calledtocommunion.com ...
So Stellman’s piece is back up now. Or is this one changed from the first time it was up?
A search of the site showed no one by the name of Stellman.
The article is dated 09/23/2012.
I will read this more carefully in a bit. Thanks.
When JJS first went public with his likely intent to swim the Tiber, he posted a piece to that site. Shortly thereafter that piece was taken down.
The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 in and of itself does not refute sola scriptura. The only scripture the apostles had was the Hebrew Bible, so they could not appeal to scripture alone. However, any "church of Christ" member could point out that the canon was not yet complete, that the Jerusalem Council wound up in "new testament scripture" anyway, so that after the completion of the canon (as opposed to before its completion) sola scriptura could still be valid.
This is another example of a correct conclusion being arrived at by faulty logic. Things like this are why most Protestants won't even consider the possibility that sola scriptura just might not be correct . . . unfortunately.
Canon or not, the problem of sola scriptura stands, transcending the scripture itself. From the articles:
All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to “solo” Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters.
On the issue of sola scriptura I'm on your side. I continue to maintain that careless arguments like the author's is one reason so few Protestants will even consider the possibility of an ancient authoritative interpretive tradition.
Thanks much for your reply.
Do you know much about this issue, interpretive authority, in Judaism?
You might be interested in:
http://www.aish.com/atr/127974628.html?catid=908539
...The fact is, the Oral Torah preceded the Written Torah. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago, God revealed Himself to the entire nation. He then gave Moses the 613 commandments along with a detailed explanation of how to fulfill them. At that point in time, the teachings were entirely oral.
It wasn’t until 40 years later, just prior to Moses’ death and the Jewish people’s entering the Land of Israel, that the Written Torah as we know it (containing various stories and sources for the mitzvahs), was given to the Jewish people...
Thanks very much. The link spurred me to look up other references on the Oral Torah. I have formally studied the OT and never knew this important information. I’m usually not amazed at my own ignorance, but I was in this case. This is just not taught to Christians. And, it made me wonder how we can even begin to think about “knowing” the OT using the text alone.
I also saw a somewhat parallel to the place of tradition in the Church.
thanks again.
“All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.The only real question is: whose interpretation?”
This seems self-evident to me. I do not see the problem.
I believe salvation is granted to individuals by hearing and believing the gospel message.
The final authority over the meaning of the Scripture is, of course, the Lord.
If one believes the gospel, he is saved.
If one believes a false gospel, he is damned.
Due diligence of the individual is expected.
I believe we can substitute Scripture for "Gospel" in your post and end up with the same problem:
Is it the Gospel or a false Gospel - according to whom.
How would you answer this objection to your position:
this concept of Scripture [Gospel] places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.
I would say deceivers were expected and warned of.
How is the individual to determine deception from truth?
I played prodigal son in my teens and 20s. I was drawn back in much the same manner as this gentleman was drawn. I fought it, kicking and screaming.
The Church beat me, as well. And for that, when I stand before the Lord God Almighty, I will be everlastingly thankful.
There is only one stream...
“How is the individual to determine deception from truth?”
with the resources given by God
thanks for your reply and posts.
I think you are very blessed.
pax tecum...
well, there are stories of swims in both directions, however one thing I like about this article is the lack of rancour towards the place he left.
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.