The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

Ishtar-Sunday was a pagan festival in honor of the Sun god. Nisan the 14th came from the Biblical OT practice, and was carried over by many Jewish believers, and perhaps some gentiles who fellowshipped with them. Ultimately; Paul said not to judge over these days; but if you want to talk about "apostolic tradition"; it would lean in favor of the Jewish practice! Such observances were annual; where does it ever say to copy the day of the week for an annual festival?
Also; wasn't Irenaeus further along in the second century than Polycarp? In any case; it is recognized that both Rome as well as Alexandria were the leaders in breaking away from the Biblical Hebrew preactices and substituting gentile ones. Perhaps this comes from them being centers of paganism and pagan philosophy, respectively.

Obviously, Satan counterfeited God's plans, as knowledge of God in the world was buried by idols and rituals. Man knew deep down inside that he needed a dying savior; and only God could clearly reveal (restore) the whole truth of that.

But that's still assuming that they spiritual metaphors they (incl. the earliest fathers as I showed) used were references to some "Real presense" in the elements themselves (when the real presence was really in the body of believers; in us!

The point is; they weren't "proto-Zwinglians"; as if that was a developed theology. Like the Trinity and others you cite; it becomes developed in reaction to error. With all the other issues in the Church; it took time for there to be a complete sweeping clean of all these teachings that had come to be long accepted.
The Gospel was the good news of salvation by Christ. This was maintained to some extent; but became buried beneath all of these other trappings. The fact that the Gospel still existed int he Bible was the reason that small groups could discover it and break away from the big church.

You are taking a technical dictionary definition of "mystical". So OK, anything "spiritual" is "mystical" in that sense. But, as you show, it has taken on a negative sense in the modern skeptical world that believes that only what you can see and touch is "real". But believers in God's spiritual truths see them as "real", so "mysticism" to us has taken on a meaning of such spiritual truths that are not apart of God's truths, and are often done under false religion, with the invisibility of them used to deceive because you can't prove/disprove it. Of course; this can be leveled at Christianity; but the misuse of it does not mean there is no right use of it, and a right use of it does not prove that any claim to it is therefore allowable. The Bible has to be the final auhority there. (And ironically enough; many of those same skeptics in science and pop culture are now accepting non-Christian notions of "spirituality"!)
Once again; the difference here is that the true "spiritual presence" in Communion is in us, the spiritual Body of Christ; just like the true salvific power of baptism is immersion into the spiritual Boby of Christ. To put such a focus on the physical elements used, is to miss the true spiritual reality, and just create more idols, as idolatry came about because man could not deal with a spiritual God, and had to deal with things they could see and touch. Once again; this is not to put down the physical (as the opposite extreme in paganism--gnosticism, often did); but it must be put in its proper perspective. To give it power in itself is to make gods out of it.

I did give scriptural, contextual proof of it (a meal by which one could be gluttonous). Look even at the biblical name "communion", which means gathering or fellowshipping together, which is what Christians do whenever they meet. And that has nothing to do with the 16th century interpretation, as even that makes a special ceremony with special food when this theory says that communion is a common meal.

then, once again, these councils and creeds should be canonized as apart of scared scripture; meaning apart of any/every "Bible" you pick up. But we do not. Why the separation, then? Could this be from a retrospective attempt to justify the terms and traditions when they are accused of deviating from scripture? And once again; you have to deal with the question of when the Holy Spirit stopped inspiring? 4th century? fifth century? Whenever the last council was? The split in 1054? Or only the 16th century when rationalism took over?

The issue is this "from/by" and "in time" distinction. If you look at the the Godhead as a whole, then the Spirit is proceeding from the whole Godhead; which includes the Son. So He can say that He is the one who sends the Spirit. From our perspective; the Spirit is coming from the Son as much as from the Father. This parallels the problem in the West I discuss on my page on the Trinity: http://members.aol.com/etb700/triune.html
"Where the East, following the Cappadocian Fathers, started from the threeness, thinking of each hypostasis as the whole (Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration, 40:41), the West, following Augustine, started from the divine unity (the mysterious "substance") and then was left trying to figure out how the Three hypostases fit in. THIS is precisely the root of the problem in the West. Looking through history, we see that the West is where all of the later problems with it arose, with dissenters like Servetus, the Socinians, the Unitarians, and now the 'kingdom of the cults'. The East never experienced all of this dissent over the doctrine. And the Eastern fathers, while regarding Augustine as a great father, were still mistrustful of his Trinitarian theology. It too, like Arianism, was seen as making God seem too rational and anthropomorphic."
So you could see why the East would emphasize the Father only; while the West would lump both together and say Father and Son. And I acknowledge there that the East has a point over the West in that. Still; using traditions and the creedal definitions; the West could still justify its addition. It is basically a matter of perspective, but the symmetrical nature of the creeds (three equal coeternal hypostases) compared with the less symmetrical expression of the earlier fathers (Which emphasized the Father as source, with Son and Spirit proceeding from them in time; --only the non-incarnate Word proceeding eternally) is what gave the West its interpretation. It was the same line of reasoning you are using here. God must have inspired it through His church leadership; despite other parts of the Church not recognizing it. How can you pick and choose what you believe God inspired?

 

You mean a more united from than many catholists would like to think; since all schism is blamed on those 16th century rationalists!

so what is the alternative, then? Well; just ignore the errors of the mother church and just submit to it; based, once again; purely on its seniority? No; I would say that it was that single authority that created this problem by deviating so much in the first place. But it is inevitable given man's nature. So just let every Tom Dick and Harry (whether as individual lone rangers, or as the magisterium of a large organization) go and do whetever they want. Remembering that we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and will be held accountable for what we knew based on what we read. That is all we can do. Once again; the individual approach is better simply because you do not have some other people thinking for you (which has been proven in every area of life to be quite dangerous). Everyone must stand before God on their own.

No, but that God allowed certain error, but when it crossed a certain line; God then raised men to separate and oppose the whole institution and all its error (see Rev.2:5 and 3:16!)

My answer would up on the next page:
Well, what you you mean "the Church"? There were differences, changes, and small groups who spoke out (Waldensians, etc) even during that period. Even you (Matt) admit "I am not advocating that authority being concentrated in one man's hands; the Church up to at least the 8th century functioned perfectly adequately on matters of dogma by conciliar rather than papal methods". Yet after the 8th century; the power did come to be concentrated in one man's hands. Was that still "the Church"? It was just as I said; the large visible Church was in a rapid slide into error; and even most of you "catholists" here do not accept everything that the RCC; EOC or any of the others have become; so just what is this "one Church authority" you keep pitching at us? Just ignore the errors of the RCC (which you do not even agree with) because of its "seniority" (most ancient organization)?
No; "the Church" MUST be an invisible spiritual body of those who believe the foundational truths of the Gospel. Not an organization that itself changes over time. As for differences; as you said: "Christians had to agree to get along in those days." So thus we do in the present as well.

 

I am curious about those statements. I have read much Eastern Orthodox Liturgy as well as Latin and Anglican liturgy. I have never seen where the East would emphasize the Father only; while the West would lump both together and say Father and Son. Actually I see a heavy emphasis on all 3 members of the Godhead. Maybe I am missing something here?

Regarding the Trinity- Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics as well as Protestanism has always affirmed the Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian, Athanasian creeds. Oriental Orthodox disagree on the wording of the Chaledonian creed but is probably more a word semantic dispute than anything. The more clear Trinitarian formulation of the later Fathers shows a more mature understanding of the Godhead. I know of no part of the Christian Church historically that rejects the Athanasian Creeds description of the Trinity or that of Nicea.

The main difference I see between the West (Roman Catholics/Protestants) and the East (Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox) over the Trinity has been over the addition of "Filique" clause (which the Eastern Orthodox point out was added without the authority of a church council) in the Nicene Creed which in my opinion is a unnecessary controversy.

 

And sure enough, it did. Christ's body was all of the people in Him; not an institution that changes over time and becomes corrupt. That's why you get hung up on "all those hundreds of protestant denominations". You are looking at organizations; and not the spiritual body.

They probably did crush some of them; but I never said that a goup being crushed necessarily proved it to be true.

And this is the fundamental question of the Gospel. What does it mean to be "in Christ"? It means to believe on Him to be saved (acts 16:31, John 3:16; etc). Then, "by one Spirit are we baptized into one body" (1 Cor.1:15). This was not a magisterium of leaders; leaders were "shepherds" to guide the flock (who were then to grow and lead others themselves; not remain "as children" forever (Heb.5:12-6:2, 1 Cor.3:1ff). And of course; we are to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves together". Once that is established; "BY THIS will all men now that you are My disciples--that you have love for one another" (John 13:35)
Yes; all the divisions may counter that; but even moreso did the big powerful institution that created the Dark Ages, and led to the very "rationalistic" revolt (the opposite extreme) everyone complains about.
But then that in itself does not prove either the one polity or the other. We are all men, and do not live the Bible the way the Bible outlines the way we should. By coming and saying "see; look at what your method has done; See; this proves ours is the way"; you are doing precisely what all of those others have done; and are just as much apart of the problem of schism; apart of the game as they are; no different really. You can't escape it; except to let them do what they want, and you just try to follow God to the best of your knowledge. Focus on Christ, not another organization competing with all the others.

Here's another point. You talk so much about "individualism"; but you, as an individual, at some poijt have to decide to join the "one true Church" organization. You have to be persuaded, from your readin gof the Bible, that they and their traditions are truest to the Bible. All you are doing is what everyone else is dong, and what you criticize protestantism for. Unless you advocate people being indoctrinated against their will; and/or born into the religion by physical lineage. We had a lot of that too in the past; and it certainly didn't work; and just produced whole societies and pews full of uncoverted reprobates.

Also, you never did answer the question anout chrismation/baptism. Have you had that yet, and if not; if I am so ignorant of EOC doctrine on that; then xplain it to me. What would happen if you die tonight? If you appeal to the thief on the Cross, or your heart (God knew I intended to be baptized); then it is obvious that the physical water is not what does the saving. Your position is then the same as many Baptists, who would day that a person should be baptized; and if they aren't; it is disobedience, and like any other form of disobedience; you can question whether they are really following Christ. But clearly; the spiritual issue is not the water. That is not what immerses ud into Christ. The water ceremonly was to mark that occasion; but it has been separated from that because churches don;t baptize converts on the spot anymore, the EOC, RCC, Church of Christ and any other group that condemns this is just as culpable; when they make you wait for months after you receive Christ to be baptized.

 

And could you have a stab at this question please?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:


"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)


The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.


Sir Isaac Newton:


"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."


Mosheim (Lutheran):


"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."


Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian):


"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."


Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.


Baptists do not believe in Apostolic Succession. The Apostolic office ceased with the death of the Apostles. It is to His churches that He promised a continual existence from the time He organized the first one during His earthly ministry until He comes again. He promised:-


You are confusing his Church with your church.

 

I got a lot of that from Karen Armstrong's A History of God She may be a secular historian who does not seem to acknowledge the divine source of the Bible, but as far as this point of history, she does show a dispute regarding the experience of the Trinity between the Cappadocians and Augustinians, and looking back; it all fit together. (IIRC; you can see some of this in the orthodox book Early Christian Doctrines, JND Kelley). The West was more rationalistic (but as we see, this problem existed in the Church centuries before the Enlightenment and reformation!). The East was more contemplative. The West focused on "the Godhead" as a rational concept; and since we had to acknowledge that it consisted of three "persons"; we had this endless confusion on how they fit together. Some tried to explain it with all sorts of analogies, and even drawings; (which only further made it look like more than one God and violated the second command, to boot); while the East said something like we experience God in each of the three, so we focus on each, and through them, we experience the fullness of the Godhead. therefore; it never gets to any metaphysical debate of how three are one.
So now; I have just seen how this difference would carry over to the filioque. The West; looking at "the Godhead" will say that "if the Spirit comes from one; He comes from the other". But the East recognizes that the Spirit comes untimately from the Father, and only through the Son. there is value in both perspectives; IMO, but the point is, thic could just as well be read into scriptures by the claims of tradition and an inspired church authority; if one is consistent.

 

True, in that we are all sinners.
False, in that the magesterium cannot claim to be inspired of God. Only the prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New Testament can claim inspiration.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The magesterium does not consist, nor ever did consist of "holy men of God that spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." That defines the writings of the prophets and the Apostles. It defines the Scriptures that we have today, and that is all.

My interpretation of Scripture is just as valid, if not more valid than the magesterium, because I rely on the Bible alone and not on some sinful man's interpretation. I use the Holy Spirit to guide me, and am not confined by the dictates of the magesterium who have proved themselves wrong time and time again. I obey the Biblical commands to search, study, and meditate, in order to come to a proper conclusion in studying the Scripture, whereas the Catholic Church not only discourages this, but in times gone by forbad it completely.
Thus the hated doctrine of sola scriptura by the Catholics. It really amounts to a lack of accoutability to God. When you stand before God someday, the magesterium is not going to take the fall for you. You will stand alone before HIM!
DHK

 

I would think so. I would think if we got away from organizationalism; that would help. Then people could keep all their theories and interpretations to themselves, or write books. But not form organizations around them (denominations), and as a unified body; then focus only on Christ.
But that seems to much to ask of man.

I would thin so; but that is now getting onto questioning god as to why He allows things.

But it was centuries of the one church approach that exasperated everyone into total revolt. And you still had cults and schisms before anyway. They were just politically subdued; and that does not preserve truth, but rather creates mre problems later on (once again; revolt).

I don't know what else you would want me to explain. god will use men or even organizations, and tolerate some sin and error (since He is dealing with us in grace), but if a certain line is crossed God "gives them over", and calls His people to "come out of her". These are scriptural principles we saw with Israel; who crossed the line in rejecting Christ (and then became a type; I believe, of this institutional Church)

 

Why? That's a logical fallacy. Just because the writers of Scripture can be defined that way, doesn't mean that any one else ever can't be "holy men of God ...moved by the Holy Spirit".

But how do you know that your "valid" interpretation of Scripture is more accurate than anyone else's (who believes in Sola Scriptua) who, through "searching, studying, and meditating", has come to some very different conclusions than you on some vital issues?

(Also it appears my lengthy reply to EricB go lost in limbo . I guess I'll try again later...UGH! )

 

Why? That's a logical fallacy. Just because the writers of Scripture can be defined that way, doesn't mean that any one else ever can't be "holy men of God ...moved by the Holy Spirit".
</font>[/QUOTE]This is not a logical fallacy at all. The teaching here is that only the original manuscripts are inspired. Only those words that prophets and the Apostles spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were the actual words of God. The canon of Scripture is closed, not open. If you believe otherwise, then you believe as some KJVO do, that there was a second inspiration and the writers of the 1611 KJV were somehow inspired to write the KJV without error. That position is fraught with error. Only the originals are infallible and without error because they were inspired and were the actual words of God. Today we have copies in various manuscripts, in which we believe the Word of God has been preserved for us. But there is no one today that can claim inspiration as the Apostles were inspired to write the Scripture. If they do, then that is heresy.
That is making the Book of Mormon on par with the Bible. It is heresy.
DHK

 

My interpretation on the orthodox doctrines of Scripture are the same as any other evangelical Christian, and yet at odds with the Catholic Church. What does that tell you about the Catholic Church? It is the one that is in error, not the evangelicals, who by sola scriptura come to full agreement on all the issues pertaining to salvation and the person of Jesus Christ.

Baptists recognize another Baptist distinctive other than sola scriptura, and that is soul liberty. On those issues which are not so essential to one's salvation there is room for discussion and room for disagreement, as you can see on this board. Hence you see heated discussions on the Calvinism/Arminian board. I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I don't believe you must take a position either way to believe the Bible. People are bound to disagree in such areas. It was the Catholic "saint" Augustine, was the founder of Calvinism, and all the tenets thereof. Calvin just appropriated those beleifs to himself. So where does the Catholic Church stand?
Anyway that is another discussion, and only an example of sola scriptura. You can study, and still may never come to a conclusive answer until you reach heaven on some doctrines.

But on some doctrines--those surrounding salvation and the person of Christ, the Bible is very clear. On the doctrine of salvation, the Catholic Church is very wrong.
DHK

 

I'm just curious how this proves anything? Even if you could PROVE that Baptists existed through time and have the same beliefs they did in the early centuries (which you can't), what makes you certain are right and the organized church that CAN be proved to exist is wrong?

It could just have easily been some heresy that hid away in caves to keep from being squashed as it was the truth hiding away in caves to keep from being squashed.

 

And could you have a stab at this question please?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:


"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)


The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.


Sir Isaac Newton:


"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."


Mosheim (Lutheran):


"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."


Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian):


"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."


Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.


Baptists do not believe in Apostolic Succession. The Apostolic office ceased with the death of the Apostles. It is to His churches that He promised a continual existence from the time He organized the first one during His earthly ministry until He comes again. He promised:-


You are confusing his Church with your church.

 

How exactly does the RCC's history of murderous persecution elevate them spirtually above the 'heretics' they sought to exterminate?

 

The fact of the anabaptists in ancient NT history goes to the point posted earlier that claimed that the RCC was the only Christian thought in existence so how could they be all wrong for those many centuries.

The anabaptist facts show that in fact this is a (majority) beast-persecutes-saints (minority) scenario exactly as the Rev 12 timeline predicts would happen for 1260 years following sometime after the ascension of Christ

hmmm - so that means ... "the Bible is right again".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Are you serious???? That alleged quote by Cardinal Hosius has long been debunked.

Check it out here:
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/hosius.html

 

Who has the video showing "no Waldenses" in the second, third and fourth Centuries?

 

WALDENSES
Roman Catholic writers try to evade the apostolic origin of the Waldenses, so as to make it appear that the Roman is the only apostolic church, and that all others are later novelties. And for this reason they try to make out that the Waldenses originated with Peter Waldo of the twelfth century. Dr. Peter Allix says: