.

[keltoi]

Scripture, tradition, and reason. I believe the three are intertwined, as you can't interepret scripture withhout having some background into it (tradition), and reason isn't to be excluded for when we find that scripture and tradition have no clear answer.

Whose tradition do we follow though? The traditions of Rome and its Greek predecessors? or the tradition of the very same people who wrote the Bible through the Spirit of God?

 

[chevyontheriver]

No model is perfect but lets be honest and think how corrupt the Roman Catholic model was, and quite possibly still is.

It's not the model, specifically the model of Scripture and Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church that is the problem. It's people. Tradition is a loyalty to the original expression, a rejection of novelty, an accurate repeating of truth into a new time. What is often needed is more tradition, less winging it with new ideas that were never part of the faith in generations past.

Divine right of Kings as long as they follow the Pope.

You lost me there.

Kings and Popes treated the people terribly on the basis of Roman Catholic tradition.

No. Some kings and some popes treated people badly on the basis of those kings and popes being rotten people.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If their reforms can be improved upon by leaving even more faulty traditions in the dumpster by comparing them to the Word of God -- all the better.

Their reforms can be improved on by undoing many of them and finding the baby they threw out with the bathwater. It's fine to throw out the dirty bathwater, but that's not all that got thrown out. Your own group prides itself on throwing all kinds of things in the dumpster. Not all of it wisely.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I am not convinced that Christ is in error in Mark 7.

I am quite sure Jesus was not in error in Mark 7. Or anywhere else. I just don't see Mark 7 as any proof of Sola Scriptura'. You can believe what you wish. I don't care. I'll stand with what I wrote in my first post in this thread. If you think that's defective, that's not my problem.

 

[keltoi]

It's not the model, specifically the model of Scripture and Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church that is the problem. It's people. Tradition is a loyalty to the original expression, a rejection of novelty, an accurate repeating of truth into a new time. What is often needed is more tradition, less winging it with new ideas that were never part of the faith in generations past.

The tradition the Bible was written in was the Hebrew tradition. The tradition of the Roman Catholic church is Greaco-Roman and it is very different to the Hebrew tradition of the original writers. Rome was a military empire and it took control of the lands of another military empire (Alexander the Great's empire and the parts it was subsequently divided into), along with all its Greaco-Roman philosophy. The Bible was not written by people with a Greaco-Roman tradition or philosophy rather it was written by Hebrews who had a very different tradition and philosophy. What is needed is a return to the original traditions and philosophy and less Greaco-Roman traditions based on the faulty logic of humanity and that have no basis in scripture.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

And they did such a smashingly good job, those former Catholics we all call the reformers now, in implementing even more 'traditions of men'. Five hundred years, almost to the year later, and it's a rip roaring mess of folks who all disagree with each other on everything except that they all say to a one that they follow Scripture alone. Great model. Really fixed up that broken Catholic model.

It is a mess. I'll grant you that, and I wish it were different; however, the same problem of division is alive and well in the Catholic church. Individual Catholics have just as many divisions in their beliefs. They just attend the same church and live in complete disregard to the teachings of their church.

There are Catholics who are such rabid feminists that they can't abort enough babies to satisfy their murderous hearts. Catholics who think that homosexuals should be married by the RC Church. Catholics who have no problem with shacking up together (very common) , female priests, birth control, and on it goes. Yet, all is well, so long as they are seated under one roof in a pew at a Catholic church this morning. . . I think not.

How is the Catholic church better at unity than the Protestants are?

 

[keltoi]

Some kings and some popes treated people badly on the basis of those kings and popes being rotten people.

How can a pope, who is supposed to be infallible, be 'rotten"? Do you see the point? The Roman Catholic system is fundamentally flawed starting from the premise that the Pope is infallible. After that it's a wet slippery dip going down into the slushy sand at the bottom. Nothing concrete just a mushy mish mash of fallible infallibility.

 

[Rick Otto]

Whose tradition do we follow though? The traditions of Rome and its Greek predecessors? or the tradition of the very same people who wrote the Bible through the Spirit of God?

Why not follow truth instead?

 

[Cis.jd]

The sola scriptura principle is seen early -- in fact in Isaiah 8:20 "to the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them" -- and as we all know - there would be a lot more scripture to come. Yet at every step - at every point along the way "sola scriptura" testing. Testing against what was already revealed in scripture.

Sola Scriptura is a falacy. The Scripture is just way too big for men to just fully understand, there is a massive pool of translations, cultural/time awareness and other factors that anybody can claim they are interpreting the truth. This is why that after 50 years of the birth Protestantism, over 100+ denominations emerged. The count of different protestant sects and denominations is at a count to around 3,000 to 5,000. Each of them claiming their previous church did not follow what was in Scripture. Even the Christian Cults such as the Mormons, JW's, etc claimed that the "scripture" revealed the actual truth. Sola Scriputra divided Christianity, period.

You can even watch the debate between James White and I forgot the other guy, and even he admitted that the apostles did not practices sola scriptura. Yes, they did have the OT, but for Christendom they had no NT at all.

 

[fhansen]

A great argument except for the fact that humanity is, and since the fall always has been, more than fallible. When humanities traditions go against what the Bible says there is a problem.

Even if so, when fallible humans separately interpret Scripture there are even more problems.

 

[fhansen]

It is a mess. I'll grant you that, and I wish it were different; however, the same problem of division is alive and well in the Catholic church. Individual Catholics have just as many divisions in their beliefs. They just attend the same church and live in complete disregard to the teachings of their church.

There are Catholics who are such rabid feminists that they can't abort enough babies to satisfy their murderous hearts. Catholics who think that homosexuals should be married by the RC Church. Catholics who have no problem with shacking up together (very common) , female priests, birth control, and on it goes. Yet, all is well, so long as they are seated under one roof in a pew at a Catholic church this morning. . . I think not.

How is the Catholic church better at unity than the Protestants are?

Do you really mean to suggest that people disagreeing with the Catholic Church in and of itself somehow invalidates Catholicism?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Do you really mean to suggest that people disagreeing with the Catholic Church in and of itself somehow invalidates Catholicism?

Where did I say that?! Maybe you should read my post again.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Do you really mean to suggest that people disagreeing with the Catholic Church in and of itself somehow invalidates Catholicism?

The catholic churches false doctrines alone invalidates the catholic church.

 

[keltoi]

Why not follow truth instead?

My point exactly. Why follow something that is not Biblical rather than follow the Bible. It is after all the inspired Word of God.

 

[keltoi]

Even if so, when fallible humans separately interpret Scripture there are even more problems.

So are you suggesting that we should just follow Roman Catholicism even though we know it is rooted in false doctrines, traditions, and beliefs?

 

[chevyontheriver]

How can a pope, who is supposed to be infallible, be 'rotten"? Do you see the point? The Roman Catholic system is fundamentally flawed starting from the premise that the Pope is infallible. After that it's a wet slippery dip going down into the slushy sand at the bottom. Nothing concrete just a mushy mish mash of fallible infallibility.

How can any man be rotten? How could Judas, a hand picked apostle of Jesus Christ, have been rotten? It happens. The system is fundamentally flawed from the premise that God Himself chose the apostles. Or maybe you are barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps Judas had the freedom all along to end up rotten. Perhaps any pope is free to end up rotten, just like you have that same freedom.

Maybe you associate infallibility, a protection given by God to the Church to protect against error in the teaching of faith and morals, with impeccability. Catholics have never claimed that any pope has ever been impeccable. We know better. Popes are human. They sin. The good ones go to confession fairly often. John Paul II did so every week. There is a picture floating around somewhere on the internet of Francis going to confession. Maybe you thought we Catholics held our popes up to be impeccable. We know better. We know that infallibility is a very limited thing, and that most things the pope says are not protected by infallibility. A pope can be a rotten man, as maybe a dozen of them have been.

In my lifetime all of them have been very good men, one even great. Pius XII, often called Hitler's pope, was responsible for 'Mit Brennender Sorge', the only German language encyclical ever, which was clearly against Hitler. He was remembered by Golda Meier as a 'servant of peace'. He was considered one of the 'righteous gentiles'. John XXIII was a holy man and visionary who called Vatican II. Paul VI an embattled man who stood up to the sexual revolution. John Paul I a joyful man who we only had around for a month. John Paul II a notable philosopher who will be remembered in future generations for his 'Theology of the Body' as it comes onto the radar of more and more Christians. Benedict was among the greatest theologians of the past 100 years, brilliant in his theology. Perhaps you have read nothing by him so you wouldn't know. Now Francis is clearly a holy man who does seem to put his foot in his mouth a bit too often. But then the press are looking to spin his words to mean about the opposite of what he had intended. They want to make him out to be the anti-Benedict and that just is not him.

My life has seen nothing but good popes, but a bad one is still a possibility. I would unhappily endure that if it came to that. I see that your presumption is that they are all bad. Well, they are all sinners, just like you are. And me, except that I am worse. So while you complain about a 'mish mash of fallible infallibility' I have actually endeavored to be formed by these fellows, in my case mostly John Paul II and Benedict XVI and now Francis. That means reading what they teach and trying to implement it in my life. You may have protected yourself up to now from reading what they actually say so you can more purely condemn that whole 'fatally flawed system'.

I'm bowing out of this discussion now. I might or might not respond to one more post first. This is more contentious than I desire to be involved with. I think you have an ax to grind, so go ahead and grind away. I don't need to read it. Spoils the whole discussion, which up to recently was pretty good.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is a mess. I'll grant you that, and I wish it were different; however, the same problem of division is alive and well in the Catholic church. Individual Catholics have just as many divisions in their beliefs. They just attend the same church and live in complete disregard to the teachings of their church.

There are Catholics who are such rabid feminists that they can't abort enough babies to satisfy their murderous hearts. Catholics who think that homosexuals should be married by the RC Church. Catholics who have no problem with shacking up together (very common) , female priests, birth control, and on it goes. Yet, all is well, so long as they are seated under one roof in a pew at a Catholic church this morning. . . I think not.

How is the Catholic church better at unity than the Protestants are?

You said "I think not." and I agree with you there. All is not well in the Catholic Church. Of course it's not. The pictures you provided are atrocious but they do give evidence for what you say. I'd be dumb to try to contest any of it. The sexual revolution is sifting the Catholic Church like sand.

The only thing I can point to with any hope is that the official teaching is still unchanged. Sometimes I just have to calm down and breath. I have to remember that the Arians were the majority for a while and that there were times that most bishops were Arian. Thankfully the Church is not a democracy, unless you consider it to be a democracy of the dead. Nicene orthodoxy was not immediately re-established everywhere after that council. Arianism persisted here and there for a few hundred years. Those times called out for an Athanasius. These times do as well. In my opinion John Paul II fulfilled at least some of the Athanasius role with regard to all of the issues you brought up. His encyclicals and his teaching on the 'theology of the body' may see us through. If not, were no different from the craziness that infects the rest of Christianity, just one more permutation.

I'm done with this thread but if you wish to continue any of this discussion between us and can make a new thread of it I would be willing to go on in that new thread.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Thankfully the Church is not a democracy

Unfortunately, for many Protestant denominations, and non-denominational churches it is just that.

I'm done with this thread but if you wish to continue any of this discussion between us and can make a new thread of it I would be willing to go on in that new thread.

How would you care to expand on this conversation?

It might be interesting to explore the contrast between Catholic and Protestant churches in handling those who are apostate. Those who ignore the teachings of the church.

 

[keltoi]

How can any man be rotten? How could Judas, a hand picked apostle of Jesus Christ, have been rotten? It happens.

You answered your own question.

The system is fundamentally flawed from the premise that God Himself chose the apostles. Or maybe you are barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps Judas had the freedom all along to end up rotten. Perhaps any pope is free to end up rotten, just like you have that same freedom.

We all have freedom to choose our path God, however, knows our choices before we make them. I can't explain God's reasoning to you because, unlike God, I am not all knowing.

Maybe you associate infallibility, a protection given by God to the Church to protect against error in the teaching of faith and morals, with impeccability.

No I'm not. People learn things like faith and morals by see the actions and behaviour of others. When the church as an organisation supports things like war (Crusades) it is implying that it is morally right to go and kill people who we deem to be lesser than we are. When the church as an organisation moves peadophiles from one parish to another so that they are not investigated by law enforcement that indicates it is morally right to sweep bad things under the carpet.

Catholics have never claimed that any pope has ever been impeccable. We know better. Popes are human. They sin. The good ones go to confession fairly often. John Paul II did so every week. There is a picture floating around somewhere on the internet of Francis going to confession. Maybe you thought we Catholics held our popes up to be impeccable. We know better. We know that infallibility is a very limited thing, and that most things the pope says are not protected by infallibility. A pope can be a rotten man, as maybe a dozen of them have been.

Going to confession is another problem. If we sin against Go we confess to God, if we sin against a brother or sister we confess to that brother or sister. Why confess to someone who wasn't part of the sin itself?

Benedict was among the greatest theologians of the past 100 years, brilliant in his theology. Perhaps you have read nothing by him so you wouldn't know.

There is an assumption there that has no basis in fact and also has nothing to do with the topic.

Now Francis is clearly a holy man who does seem to put his foot in his mouth a bit too often. But then the press are looking to spin his words to mean about the opposite of what he had intended. They want to make him out to be the anti-Benedict and that just is not him.

I like Francis and I didn't mind Benedict, and John Paul II was partly responsible for helping the collapse of global Communism. Problem is they are mere mortals and they are no better or worse than any other mere mortal. All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

My life has seen nothing but good popes, but a bad one is still a possibility. I would unhappily endure that if it came to that. I see that your presumption is that they are all bad.

Making assumptions again based on nothing.I am talking about the position of Pope and you are talking about individuals.

Well, they are all sinners, just like you are. And me, except that I am worse.

We are all equal.

So while you complain about a 'mish mash of fallible infallibility'

I didn't complain, I stated my belief and it seems you have a problem with that.

I have actually endeavored to be formed by these fellows, in my case mostly John Paul II and Benedict XVI and now Francis. That means reading what they teach and trying to implement it in my life.

Sounds like a personality cult to me.

You may have protected yourself up to now from reading what they actually say so you can more purely condemn that whole 'fatally flawed system'.

Another assumption of what I do.

I'm bowing out of this discussion now.

Bye bye

This is more contentious than I desire to be involved with. I think you have an ax to grind, so go ahead and grind away.

Another assumption.

I don't need to read it.

No you don't need to read it because like Judas you have freedom of choice.

Spoils the whole discussion, which up to recently was pretty good.

I'm sorry if the opinions of others that disagree with you or paint something you believe deeply in are difficult to take but I will state my opinion honestly. You have the option of reading it and responding or not responding.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Unfortunately, for many Protestant denominations, and non-denominational churches it is just that.



How would you care to expand on this conversation?

It might be interesting to explore the contrast between Catholic and Protestant churches in handling those who are apostate. Those who ignore the teachings of the church.

Could be interesting. I don't know enough of the mechanics of these fora to know how to branch off a new discussion from here, but if you can do that I'd be happy to discuss it with you.