Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Would you say having Cardinals is biblical

http://www.christianforums.com/t7292111-7/#post49474069
'Apostolic Succession' of Roman See = House of Straw

Well, having a pope isn't biblical either. A 'vicar of Christ'?! Mm Hm...

 

[Montalban]

Would you say having Cardinals is biblical

http://www.christianforums.com/t7292111-7/#post49474069
'Apostolic Succession' of Roman See = House of Straw

We don't have cardinals.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, having a pope isn't biblical either. A 'vicar of Christ'?! Mm Hm...

I don't even want to go there on this thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t7325781-104/
Pope, King of the world?

snip OP:

#1. "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."

 

[Montalban]

Well, having a pope isn't biblical either. A 'vicar of Christ'?! Mm Hm...

Yes, I've gone over the Protestant errors of rejecting ALL traditions because of certain Catholic traditions that they don't like.

Citing Catholic traditions makes no sense in a stream of discussion with Orthodox.

But then Protestants are simply reacting to Catholicism.

 

[Montalban]

I don't even want to go there on this thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t7325781-104/
Pope, King of the world?

snip OP:

#1. "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."

You're the one who started that small diversion with the question to me about Cardinals.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You're the one who started that small diversion with the question to me about Cardinals.

I learned to do that from the best

We don't have cardinals.

How come

 

[laconicstudent]

Yes, I've gone over the Protestant errors of rejecting ALL traditions because of certain Catholic traditions that they don't like.

Citing Catholic traditions makes no sense in a stream of discussion with Orthodox.

But then Protestants are simply reacting to Catholicism.

True.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Citing Catholic traditions makes no sense in a stream of discussion with Orthodox.

... this coming from the one who says Tradition is the best rule in the evaluation of the correctness of positions, what is MORE inspired than Scripture, MORE inerrant than Scripture, MORE reliable than Scripture, MORE knowable by all and unalterable by all, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced. Yeah. Well, Tradition embraces Cardinal and an infallible Pope and Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Original Sin and Transubstantiation and the Assumption of Mary - the later all as DE FIDE DOGMA - the highest level of teaching, all STRIGHT FROM TRADITION. It's all there - ask any Catholic bishop. Right there in Tradition. Oh, and ask any Mormon Bishop if Tradition includes Joseph Smith finding those plates and Jesus visiting the Americas - yup, it's all THERE - right there in Tradition - and you have noted that Tradition should be the rule in determining what is correct and what is not.

(To my Protestant friends: When the RCC and LDS say "Tradition" what is meant is "what I teach." Yes, IF they would accept ANY norma normans in ANY normative process - and they won't - that would be the one rule that might be considered: do I agree with me?)




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Montalban Yes, I've gone over the Protestant errors of rejecting ALL traditions because of certain Catholic traditions that they don't like.

Citing Catholic traditions makes no sense in a stream of discussion with Orthodox.

But then Protestants are simply reacting to Catholicism.

True.

Boy, if that ain't the pot callin the kettle.....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7381842-12/#post52251942

Originally Posted by ProScribe I'm not sure if Catholics are actually heretics.

Pro-Scribe - you are Orthodox - correct ?

Then , according to Orthodoxy , Catholics are indeed heretics

 

[laconicstudent]

... this coming from the one who says Tradition is the best rule in the evaluation of the correctness of positions, what is MORE inspired than Scripture, MORE inerrant than Scripture, MORE reliable than Scripture, MORE knowable by all and unalterable by all, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced. Yeah. Well, Tradition embraces Cardinal and an infallible Pope and Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Original Sin and Transubstantiation and the Assumption of Mary - the later all as DE FIDE DOGMA - the highest level of teaching, all STRIGHT FROM TRADITION. It's all there - ask any Catholic bishop. Right there in Tradition. Oh, and ask any Mormon Bishop if Tradition includes Joseph Smith finding those plates and Jesus visiting the Americas - yup, it's all THERE - right there in Tradition - and you have noted that Tradition should be the rule in determining what is correct and what is not.

(To my Protestant friends: When the RCC and LDS say "Tradition" what is meant is "what I teach." Yes, IF they would accept ANY norma normans in ANY normative process - and they won't - that would be the one rule that might be considered: do I agree with me?)




.

Do you realize that you are speaking to an Eastern Orthodox Christian?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Boy, if that ain't the pot callin the kettle.....

I think the RCC tossed the EO out centuries before it tossed Luther out....
Not that it matters a bit.
Or has a thing to do with the topic.

If the EO regards truth as moot - and thus rejects accountability, evaluating truthfulness/validity/correctness and any rule for such - fine. But then it has nothing to say in a thread about accountability, evaluating truthfulness/validity/correctness and any rule for such. If I don't believe Big Foot exists, why would I go on and on with opinions in a thread about how much he weighs?




.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Boy, if that ain't the pot callin the kettle.....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Do you realize that you are speaking to an Eastern Orthodox Christian?

I would think he does

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Yes, I've gone over the Protestant errors of rejecting ALL traditions because of certain Catholic traditions that they don't like.

Citing Catholic traditions makes no sense in a stream of discussion with Orthodox.

But then Protestants are simply reacting to Catholicism.

I'm curious to know why any Protestant should accept whatever you think is error concerning our rejection of unbiblical catholic traditions. However, I don't reject all church tradition, only the ones that are not biblical. If an accepted church tradition is contrary to Scripture (not found in Scripture), it should be rejected.

 

[laconicstudent]

This thread has reached the point of making no sense. Apparently now its just "bash-the-EO" time.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

... this coming from the one who says Tradition is the best rule in the evaluation of the correctness of positions, what is MORE inspired than Scripture, MORE inerrant than Scripture, MORE reliable than Scripture, MORE knowable by all and unalterable by all, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced. Yeah. Well, Tradition embraces Cardinal and an infallible Pope and Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Original Sin and Transubstantiation and the Assumption of Mary - the later all as DE FIDE DOGMA - the highest level of teaching, all STRIGHT FROM TRADITION. It's all there - ask any Catholic bishop. Right there in Tradition. Oh, and ask any Mormon Bishop if Tradition includes Joseph Smith finding those plates and Jesus visiting the Americas - yup, it's all THERE - right there in Tradition - and you have noted that Tradition should be the rule in determining what is correct and what is not.

(To my Protestant friends: When the RCC and LDS say "Tradition" what is meant is "what I teach." Yes, IF they would accept ANY norma normans in ANY normative process - and they won't - that would be the one rule that might be considered: do I agree with me?)

Do you realize that you are speaking to an Eastern Orthodox Christian?

Yup - one who rejects DE FIDE DOGMA that comes lock, stock and barrel RIGHT FROM TRADITION. Which he stated is the best norma normans.





.

 

[Montalban]

Do you realize that you are speaking to an Eastern Orthodox Christian?

It seems like a knee-jerk reaction to any non-SS position

 

[Thekla]

What about conflicting doctrines that are both supported by Scripture; for example, the Arian controversy. Is Jesus Christ both only a man (ie a creation) and also the pre-eternal Logos enfleshed ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, I'm sure you have gone over these so-called Protestant errors, or what you think is error anyway, therefore you must think that the issue has been settled.
If an accepted church tradition is contrary to Scripture (not found in Scripture), it should be rejected.
And for some who like to point out 'so-called' errors by posting ECF quotes, Wiki articles, or links from catholic/orthodox apologetics sites is completely moot, IMO.

Well, we haven' yet started a thread on the errors of Orthodoxy

http://www.christianforums.com/t6983026-70/#post44373244
Errors of Protestism

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-88/#post43628407
Roman church errors and inventions

 

[Montalban]

Well, I'm sure you have gone over these so-called Protestant errors, or what you think is error anyway, therefore you must think that the issue has been settled. However, I'm curious to know why you think that I or any Protestant should accept whatever you think is error concerning our rejection of unbiblical catholic traditions. I don't reject all church tradition, only the ones that are not biblical. If an accepted church tradition is contrary to Scripture (not found in Scripture), it should be rejected. And for some who like to point out 'so-called' errors by posting ECF quotes, Wiki articles, or links from catholic/orthodox apologetics sites is completely moot, IMO.

You miss the point of Protestants launching into an attack on tradition and listing things I don't believe in.