Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You either care about truth or you don't.Luther never said what you quoted or alluded to.
See how that works.
You made the claim it is your burden to present the evidence.
now read the whole of book 4
And see what iraneus actually said: stop cherry picking out of context.
At the time iraneus wrote , the NT was a long way in the future. And iraneus notes the canons of the time e.g. Marcions were rejected by Rome
Just like the early church, like Jesus commanded.Less divisions of the statement of faith. Differences in what you would call liturgy. The liturgy for your church is a unifying element of faith. Whereas for Evangelicals it is the zeal to spread the Gospel, ministry works and planting churches. Very much like the first evangelists.
The greatest unity among Evangelicals is the partnerships with other churches in local community ministry and overseas missionaries.
The same thing that stops a wayward Catholic from going down the street and receiving communion at a different parish...nothing.Also, what's to stop the penitent (for lack of a better word) from joining up at some other ecclesial community?
I'd say tradition is declared in this order-
Ecumenical councils (so read their canons),
Synod's and minor councils,
Writings of the fathers.
In the RCC they have a much better catechism then in the OC, probably because they are much more strict in their dogma.
I bought a book on liturgical tradition, as well as "The development of the liturgy in the Byzantine rite" - written by an Anglican. For saints you'll want to read the synaxis.
There is a series by some ex Protestant called The faith- it's basically a comprehensive catechism.
You sure about that? Because receiving the Sacrament after ex-communication is sacrilege. Those aren’t stakes most people are willing to play for.Just like the early church, like Jesus commanded.
The same thing that stops a wayward Catholic from going down the street and receiving communion at a different parish...nothing.
Well, evidently there is supposed to be some grave penalty for being ex-communicated from the RCC, but that didn't stop the person in question from ending up there anyway. It kind of reminds of that scene from Animal House where the fraternity is put on double secret probation.You sure about that? Because receiving the Sacrament after ex-communication is sacrilege. Those aren’t stakes most people are willing to play for.
Some turned out to be heretics.If the very bishops who had the laying on of hands and succession of the Apostles couldn't be trusted, then WHO could you trust?
I have several times. What's your point and if I quoted the full book and chapter it just furthers my point.now read the whole of book 4
And see what iraneus actually said: stop cherry picking out of context.
Irenaeus quotes from 25 of 27 NT books which would later be called into the canon. Not seeing your point here. Is your point the 27 books of the NT were not recognized as Holy or Sacred Scriptures before the canon was established?At the time iraneus wrote , the NT was a long way in the future. And iraneus notes the canons of the time e.g. Marcions were rejected by Rome
iraneus also stated that the truth of scripture could be found by listening to the doctrine of the church at Rome,
and he criticises gnostics for disregarding scripture and tradition wherever it suits them.
Actually the Gnostic viva voce traditions are more in line with the supposed Sacred Tradition your church promotes as 'always been known' but never written down. I don't see Irenaeus quoting canons and bulls of the church in Against Heresies. He does quote extensively from the OT and NT books and when he uses the term 'apostolic tradition' he refers to the rule of faith handed down from the apostles.Just like modern day Protestants do.
Indeed the church, called out ones, ekklesia are the pillar and foundation of Truth. Meaning the church upholds the Truth as received from Christ and His apostles, not the creators of Truth.Scripture says the foundation of truth is the church, which dovetails with iraneus defining which church!
Sorry Sir you made the claim it is incumbent upon you to source the assertions.You either care about truth or you don't.
If you care you will look it up and find it.
Some of Luther's later writings are fascinating.
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a complex doctrine which is made of many parts. So in order to defend and prove it we need to establish its basic parts. One important part is the clarity of Scripture.
The Westminster Confession of Faith says of the Bible...
“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture of other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WCF 1.7)
It's a nuanced statement that affirms:
The basic idea is that the Bible is sufficiently clear. The most important things in Scripture - things necessary to salvation - are able to be understood by all based on their own reading and study of Scripture.
- Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear in itself. Some passages are difficult to interpret.
- Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear to all people. Adults understand parts of Scripture that children don't. Married people understand parts of Scripture that single people don't. Educated people understand parts of Scripture that uneducated people don't. Poor people understand parts of Scripture that rich people don't. Etc...
- Yet the things that are necessary for salvation (things to be known, believed, and obeyed) are so clearly laid out in some place or another that anyone can gain a sufficient understanding of them. This includes clergy and laity, educated and uneducated, men and women, adults and children, etc... Of course the caveat is that people have to put some work into understanding the Bible. This is what is meant by the "due use of ordinary means."
This doctrine is called the clarity of Scripture. This doctrine is implied in many places in Scripture. Here are just a few:
Psalm 119:130 - The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.Other Scriptures could be cited. But in sum we see that the Bible is able to make the simple wise. The unlearned can read it and grow in knowledge of God. Also the common people of Israel were commanded to know God's word and teach it to their children. This implies that God's word is able to be understood. Furthermore, the Jews in Berea were counted noble because they searched the Scriptures for themselves to test the apostles' preaching.
Proverbs 1:4 - to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth
Deuteronomy 6:6-7 - 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
Acts 17:11 - Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
1 John 2:27 - 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
This stands in contradiction to RCC and EO teaching. According to these traditions, the Scriptures are not sufficiently clear. In the Medieval era before the Reformation it was illegal in many places for private Christians to gather together to read the Bible. And the Bible was not translated into the common language because it was supposed that the Bible is not sufficiently clear - it is not able to be understood by the common people.
The RCC and EO teach that the people of God need ordained clergy in order to tell them what the Bible means - otherwise they are without hope. In their view, more authoritative words from God are needed (which come through the church) in order to clarify Scripture. All of this goes back to the root idea that the Bible alone is not sufficiently clear.
Thankfully Rome has shifted somewhat on its position since the Reformation and now encourages the private reading of Scripture. But Rome still stubbornly holds to the position that the Scriptures are not clear. To say that the Scriptures are not clear is, at the end of the day, to say that God's Word is unsuccessful. Successful communication is clear communication. But if God did not communicate clearly through his word, then his word is unsuccessful. Since this cannot be, we must accept that the Scriptures are sufficiently clear.
Thanks . I'll be on the lookout for the book.Hugh Wybrew.
I have several times. What's your point and if I quoted the full book and chapter it just furthers my point.
So please establish your opposing argument and link to the source material.
Irenaeus quotes from 25 of 27 NT books which would later be called into the canon. Not seeing your point here. Is your point the 27 books of the NT were not recognized as Holy or Sacred Scriptures before the canon was established?
Source the quote please. And when you explain which doctrines were not already written in Holy Scriptures.
He criticized the Gnostics for not being able to justify their secret supposed apostolic traditions which apparently were not written down, nor to be found in Holy Scriptures and were viva voce.
Actually the Gnostic viva voce traditions are more in line with the supposed Sacred Tradition your church promotes as 'always been known' but never written down. I don't see Irenaeus quoting canons and bulls of the church in Against Heresies. He does quote extensively from the OT and NT books and when he uses the term 'apostolic tradition' he refers to the rule of faith handed down from the apostles.
Indeed the church, called out ones, ekklesia are the pillar and foundation of Truth. Meaning the church upholds the Truth as received from Christ and His apostles, not the creators of Truth.
The Scripture is authoritative, complete and infallible, but it isn't clear. I think this is why we have Bible studies and leaders. For example, what day is the Sabbath?
And I would think we have the various Christian denominations because of it albeit it isn't anywhere near 33,000.
I think you’re missing it. The person would be excommunicated. That’s one penalty: being outside communion with the Church.Well, evidently there is supposed to be some grave penalty for being ex-communicated from the RCC, but that didn't stop the person in question from ending up there anyway. It kind of reminds of that scene from Animal House where the fraternity is put on double secret probation.
Perhaps if you could spell out the "stakes" it would be helpful. Thanks.
I think you’re missing it. The person would be excommunicated. That’s one penalty: being outside communion with the Church.Well, evidently there is supposed to be some grave penalty for being ex-communicated from the RCC, but that didn't stop the person in question from ending up there anyway. It kind of reminds of that scene from Animal House where the fraternity is put on double secret probation.
Perhaps if you could spell out the "stakes" it would be helpful. Thanks.
And the "stakes" are?I think you’re missing it. The person would be excommunicated. That’s one penalty: being outside communion with the Church.
Committing sacrilege on top of that is even heavier since the person would then be considered guilty of Our Lord’s blood.
With respect, this is something I’ve noticed Protestants don’t seem to really grasp. Being hell-bound is one thing. Having His body and blood against your account is something even bigger.
Unworthy Communion Is Sacrilege | Catholic Answers
Did you miss the part about an excommunicant being guilty of His body and blood by receiving the sacrament?And the "stakes" are?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?