Great. Word. Picture. Elsie!
You will know them by their secret foot markings...
Posted on 05/15/2014 8:58:50 PM PDT by Salvation
Not vacant; but non-existant.
So says the Gospel according to Elsie. I'll pass, thanks.
You got it. Now ask the question, "What must you do?"
I’ve read the Bible from cover to cover twice, and I haven’t found Luther’s doctrine of the Bible ALONE as the sole rule of faith, either.
How is that mockery or a put down of Catholic beliefs?
Touche’
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
Please cite where that was ever a doctrine of Luther's.
Where's that in the Bible?
What isn’t in the Scriptures is sola ecclesia.
The Church doesn't teach "sola ecclesia." The three pillars of Catholic doctrine are Church Teaching (the Magisterium), Written Tradition (Scripture), and Oral Tradition.
All three are supported by Scripture.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura is a serious error. Like most great doctrinal errors, it is an over-emphasis of one aspect of the faith, and the rejection of other aspects.
I’m wondering sincerely, do those “churches” differ significantly from each other in a doctrinal sense? If not, why are they not simply united under one church with one name?
It’s a sincere question because it really seems to me that it can’t be had both ways: either these groups have serious theological differences or they don’t, but don’t unite under one name for their church for, well it seems to me for reasons of pride. They all like their individual name the best.
Either way it doesn’t look too good for them.
Look, Christians are called to spread the truth because there is no way to know where you might encounter one of Christ’s sheep. Using Scripture, I tried to subtly point out that Rome teaches commandments of men for doctrine, just as the Pharisees of old. My hope was that The Lord would use His Word to get someone to begin to compare what he or she is being taught to the Word of God to see if it be so, just like the Bereans of Acts 17.
“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.”
—Isaiah 45:22
It doesn’t matter how you stand or hold your hands. And there is no such thing as salvation to be found in a Roman mass or in any other sacrament. Look to Christ and be saved!
In the first chapter of Romans, Paul calls the gospel “the power of God unto salvation.” The gospel is a very specific thing and it has a power all of its own. Are you certain you know the gospel of Jesus Christ? Do you have assurance of eternal salvation deep in your soul? If not, please take the time to listen to these and hear the only gospel that has “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.”
The Gospel Defined and Discerned
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=81901181950
Unmasking the False Gospel
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1010665821
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth...”
—Romans 1:16
The doctrine was promoted by Luther's followers, and was a rallying cry of the Protestant Revolution. The idea had to come from somewhere.
Regardless, here's what R.C. Sproul has to say about it:
A brief historical recapitulation of the steps that led to Luther’s Sola Scriptura dictum may be helpful. After Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, a series of debates, correspondence,Interestingly, Sproul follows his logic to its inevitable conclusion, believing the Bible to be "a fallible collection of infallible books," since the Church canonized Scripture, and Sproul believes the Church to be fallible in matters of teaching.[p.104]
charges, and countercharges ensued, culminating in Luther’s dramatic stand at Worms in April 1521. The two most significant transitional points between the theses of 1517 and the Diet of Worms of 1521 were the debates at Augsburg and Leipzig. In October 1518 Luther met with Cardinal Cajetan of the Dominicans. Cajetan was acknowledged to be the most learned theologian of the Roman Curia. In the course of their discussions Cajetan was able to elicit from Luther his views on the infallibility of the pope. Luther asserted that the pope could err and claimed that Pope Clement VI’s bull Unigenitus (1343) was contrary to Scripture.[2]
In the summer of 1519 the dramatic encounter between Luther and Johannes von Eck took place at Leipzig. In this exchange Eck elicited from Luther the admission of his belief that not only could the pope err but church councils could and did err as well. It was at Leipzig that Luther made clear his assertion: Scripture alone is the ultimate, divine authority in all matters pertaining to religion. Gordon Rupp gives the following account:
Luther affirmed that "among the articles of John Huss and the Hussites which were condemned, are many which are truly Christian and evangelical, and which the church universal cannot condemn!" This was sensational! There was a moment of shocked silence, and then an uproar above which could be heard Duke George’s disgusted, "Gad, Sir, that’s the Plague! ..." Eck pressed his advantage home, and Luther, trapped, admitted that since their decrees are also of human law, Councils may err.[3]So by the time Luther stood before the Diet of Worms, the principle of Sola Scriptura was already well established in his mind and work. Only the Scripture carries absolute normative authority. Why? For Luther the sola of Sola Scriptura was inseparably related to the Scriptures’ unique inerrancy. It was because popes could and did err and because councils could and did err that Luther came to realize the supremacy of Scripture. Luther did not despise church authority nor did he repudiate church councils as having no value. His praise of the Council of Nicea is noteworthy. Luther and the Reformers did not mean by Sola Scriptura that the Bible is the only authority in the church. Rather, they meant that the Bible is the only infallible authority in the church. Paul Althaus summarizes the train of Luther’s thought by saying:
We may trust unconditionally only in the Word of God and not in the teaching of the fathers; for the teachers of the Church can err[p.105] and have erred. Scripture never errs. Therefore it alone has unconditional authority. The authority of the theologians of the Church is relative and conditional. Without the authority of the words of Scripture, no one can establish hard and fast statements in the Church.[4]
Regardless, you're free to believe that Luther didn't promote the teaching that "the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith." What's more important is that Protestants hold to this error.
So do you hold to this doctrine? If so, why?
“If your brother sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."Binding and loosing" is the Apostolic Teaching Authority that was given to the Apostles, and Peter pre-eminently.“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 16:19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
John 20:23
If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven ... ... If you bind fast the sins of any, they remain bound ... if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained ...
If we knew we wouldn't call it Faith would we? Do your own book report.
But that is classic begging the question, circular reasoning. We have a shared entry point in Scripture for the basics of the doctrines such as the Trinity, for one example, which is why virtually all Protestant denominations that adopt Scripture as their primary source accept that doctrine.
Transubstantiation, OTOH, was not a part of that "early deposit," not in the form finally put under the protection Trent, which was the full-orbed Aquinian inversion of Aristotle's accidence versus substance, which has no traceable roots prior to Radbertus, a 9th Century monk.
BTW, it will be insufficient to raise the general idea of "real presence" as a substitute for transubstantiation. We may argue whether John 6 is best viewed as describing a metaphor for belief in Christ, per Peter's confession at the end of the chapter, but it is beyond all dispute that there is nothing in the text that even remotely supports the Aristotelian/Aquinian sophistry that empowered the sacerdotal system of later Rome, dissent from which would draw the ire of Trent.
So consider this analogy. Human DNA is the "book" that governs the development of the human organism over it's entire life span. It contains all data necessary to make a human. It does not have, in itself, all physical supplies, such as food, water, etc., that contribute to the proper growth of the person, but it has all the information necessary to make good use of those resources.
Now a tumor comes along. How does the tumor get there? After all, it does grow out of the original human material, and indeed can show by "cellular succession" that it came from the most important stem cells in the body's history.
But something is clearly wrong. The DNA has mutated. It is not the same as the original DNA. New information has been added, and old information lost. It begins to make millions of copies of the mutant cells, and becomes a serious threat to the well-being of the original human organism.
Which is why Elsie's picture (as profoundly disturbing as it is) is so much to the point. Rome and Protestantism are not in conflict except where Rome has proffered doctrines that are materially different from the original DNA of the body of Christ, as recorded faithfully for us in Scripture. The proper method for dealing with such novelties is to challenge them based on the record of that original DNA. This was the method of Athanasius, in defending, against all comers, the deity of Christ against the Arian mutation.
So your statement that "nothing was added" incurs a burden. If you say it wasn't added, you have to show it's originality, and to do that, you have to use the original reference "DNA." Otherwise the "body" has no defense whatsoever against ANYbody coming along and claiming their "novelty doctrine" was always there, just undocumented. To open such a door is to destroy the body's immunity to any new cancer.
So we Protestant will continue to stand firm, like Athanasius, for checking all claims of doctrinal "enhancements" against the book that defines our DNA as believers. You can speculate all you like, but you cannot bind the Christian conscience to anything that is not indisputably the word of God.
“The Church doesn’t teach “sola ecclesia.” The three pillars of Catholic doctrine are Church Teaching (the Magisterium), Written Tradition (Scripture), and Oral Tradition. All three are supported by Scripture.”
“Magisterium” - defined by Rome as herself alone, is not in Scripture (sola magisterium). Oral Tradition is a moot point because you do not have a list of the specific traditions Paul referred to. If by some chance this list has been found this week, please post it. I’ve asked over years here on FR and no one seems to know where they placed that list of Paul’s referred to traditions...
That leaves the only infallible and authoritative, inspired Word of God. It alone is sufficient for salvation, equipping the man of God and for maturity.
Great. Word. Picture. Elsie!
You will know them by their secret foot markings...
The Bible is full of churches with different names. There’s nothing wrong with that.
As far as doctrinal differences, I don’t think there’s anything significant in them. They all state that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ without the requirement of works.
Some of the denominations have a greater emphasis on missions. Some are located in different cities. Some have a different style of worship.
It doesn’t matter if they’re separate entities. Churches don’t save anyway so there’s no need for a top heavy hierarchy.
Besides, it hasn’t worked out so well for the Catholic church to be all under one head. There MAY be, officially, unity in doctrine, but the levels of corruption and immorality which exist within the church, show that being unified doctrinally is just a show as there is no church discipline going on. Too much covering their behinds going on.
Why should anyone look at the Catholic church and consider it superior in light of the abusive priests scandal, and the fact that the clergy is outright ignoring the Church’s own teachings by continuing to give communion to those who are in rebellion to it?
What advantage is there to being *unified* all under one governing entity?
Tell me why it’s superior.
That didn't answer the question.
Speculation and inferences are not proof.
A non-answer if ever there was one.
IOW, you can’t answer it.
There is no way of knowing or verifying.
You could be believing in something that is totally fabricated, IOW, believing a lie. Where is that going to get you?
If you’re going to trust in hearsay, you are on very shaky ground.
I’m not making the claim that I’m depending on oral tradition.
It’s not up to me to research something I don’t believe in to either prove it or disprove it.
If you make the claim, you need to back it up.
If the oral tradition is handed down from the apostles faithfully, prove it.
Ping to post 313.
Excellent!
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.