you trust them for your canon but not your doctrine.
But it's not as though bishops ran around making up doctrine and saying that they had the right to do so, thanks to Apostolic Succession.
A.S., is not about decreeing doctrines; it's about proper administration in the church and the validity of the sacraments. Notice that none of the above quotations which refer to bishops refer to them in connection with making new doctrines. You've got to deal with the claims made for "Tradition" if you want to deal with unscriptural doctrine. Even when Papal Infallibility was decreed by a non-canonical council, it was said that this was correct since "Tradition" had already decided it. That wasn't true, of course, but you have to see that a mythical "Tradition" is what all this hangs on. It's a blank check for inventing almost any new doctrine.
Wrong. You are on the wrong path there. "Tradition" (not tradition) stands on its own in the minds of the Catholic apologists. To attack the leadership of the church instead of the theory that produces new doctrine would be like them attacking Luther or Calvin when evaluating reformed doctrine while not attributing any Protestant doctrine to (an interpretation of) the Bible.
I agree. That's correct.
'
No, we do not. It's "Tradition" that supposedly operated on its own at God's direction that is theoretically the reason these doctrines exist.
As for the councils, yes, they were populated by bishops, but the decrees of the councils were mainly correct and Biblical or else they dealt with non-doctrinal matters. The majority of non-Biblical doctrines--the Marian ones we've been talking about, for instance--are not related to the councils but have been adopted because Tradition has already decreed that they were the faith of the church (according to the theory, that is).
There is the point of RC magisterium so declaring doctrine based on Scripture or Tradition. They believe they have the right.
Are you thinking that "Holy Tradition" AKA "Sacred Tradition" is a function only of the "Magisterium" or the Ecumenical Council?For EO and P up to #7, it was Councils that thought they had a right.
I'm saying that they CLAIM a stream of extra-Biblical information that they deem to be divine revelation.But your point is there's some "stream" of apostolic information they define as Tradition.
They made it up!I'm trying to understand why they think that.
Ah, yes. That is the verse that's used, but they might as well have chosen almost any other verse and proclaimed that it was the basis. The verse says nothing even remotely related to the concept that is "Tradition" and the word itself doesn't even appear in that verse. It's purely artificial to consider this to be a proof text.2 Thes 2:15 is the blank check. Somewhere, at some time, someone thought they could use something besides scripture to determine doctrine.
What do you or others think of this verse?There is the point of RC magisterium so declaring doctrine based on Scripture or Tradition. They believe they have the right.
For EO and P up to #7, it was Councils that thought they had a right.
But your point is there's some "stream" of apostolic information they define as Tradition. I'm trying to understand why they think that.
2 Thes 2:15 is the blank check. Somewhere, at some time, someone thought they could use something besides scripture to determine doctrine.
What do you or others think of this verse?
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a fo
NET)
1Corinthians 4:6
I have applied these things to myself and Apollos because of you, brothers and sisters, so that through us you may learn "not to go beyond what is written," so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of the one against the other.
LLOJ)
1 Corinthians 4:6
These-things yet brethren! I after-figure into myself and Apollos because-of ye.
That in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written/gegraptai <1125> (5769), *to think* that no one over the one ye may be being puffed up against the other/different.
..........."The true reading is merely, not above the things which have been written, as though the words were a sort of proverb, like Ne quid nimis or Milton's "The rule of not too much" (μηδὲν ἄγαν. The word "to think" is omitted in the best manuscripts. The phrase, "which have been written," is of very uncertain meaning. It may refer generally to "the scriptural rule" that all boasting is wrong (Jeremiah 9:23), or to the humble estimate of teachers which he has just been writing down for them."....................
http://www.christianforums.com/t7367166/#post51676697
1 Corin 4:6 No above what is written
.
What do you or others think of this verse?
NET)
1Corinthians 4:6
I have applied these things to myself and Apollos because of you, brothers and sisters, so that through us you may learn "not to go beyond what is written," so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of the one against the other.
LLOJ)
1 Corinthians 4:6
These-things yet brethren! I after-figure into myself and Apollos because-of ye.
That in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written/gegraptai <1125> (5769), *to think* that no one over the one ye may be being puffed up against the other/different.
..........."The true reading is merely, not above the things which have been written, as though the words were a sort of proverb, like Ne quid nimis or Milton's "The rule of not too much" (μηδὲν ἄγαν. The word "to think" is omitted in the best manuscripts. The phrase, "which have been written," is of very uncertain meaning. It may refer generally to "the scriptural rule" that all boasting is wrong
you trust them for your canon but not your doctrine.
If the denominations and communions and independent groups under the broad umbrella cannot decide an agreed set of doctrines that are essential for salvation then doctrinal unity within Protestantism would be impossible, right?
I tend not to think so to the extent that even if it's not written, it may still be true. Sola Scriptura simply means that one uses scripture as a basis to determine what and what isn't true.
The Church is in perfect harmony with scripture- many just refuse it, taking a solo scriptura stance.
The bible seems to teach us that the world would grow more and more evil and that the Church would grow further and further into apostasy. Unity is not necessarily going to happen if this is correct. I myself don't listen to many teachers, I try to follow the things that The Lord, Paul, Peter and James teach us. I think they are the best teachers among men. I don't reject the teaching of other teachers but I know that its fallible and that it wouldn't be wise to be blind followers of teachers in these last days.
Originally Posted by Restoresmysoul
The bible seems to teach us that the world would grow more and more evil and that the Church would grow further and further into apostasy. Unity is not necessarily going to happen if this is correct. I myself don't listen to many teachers, I try to follow the things that The Lord, Paul, Peter and James teach us. I think they are the best teachers among men. I don't reject the teaching of other teachers but I know that its fallible and that it wouldn't be wise to be blind followers of teachers in these last days.
I don't think the apostasy is concerning leaving the RCC, EO, or Protestant chruches, but leaving deserting Christ.It is possible that the divisions we see are a sign of the apostasy about which Jesus Christ warned.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not making a comparison between anyone. I'm only suggesting that the premise which you are using isn't necessarily a good one. Consider that the scribes (who Jesus rebuked) gave us the Old Testament but we wouldn't trust their teaching of doctrine. Preserving a text it isn't the same as teaching it. And its also true that it doesn't matter how many times a person reads the bible, consider the Pharisees,they read it many times. It only matters how we understand and apply what is written
If the denominations and communions and independent groups under the broad umbrella of Protestantism cannot decide an agreed set of doctrines that are essential for salvation then doctrinal unity within Protestantism would be impossible, right?
It is possible that the divisions we see are a sign of the apostasy about which Jesus Christ warned.
I don't think the apostasy is concerning leaving the RCC, EO, or Protestant chruches, but leaving deserting Christ.
Apostasy has been happening since the time of Christ and the Apostles.
One problem with the Pharisees is that they taught the "tradition of the elders". When Israel came out of Babylon they brought Babylonian ideas with them and made God's Word none-effect with their Talmud, which was extra-Biblical. Kinda like Catholicism with their "catechisms", Didache, Council declarations, etc.
I have trouble understanding this unity thing that people keep trying to establish. Part of me thinks that unity is good but another part of me remembers that Paul teaches us to not fellowship with those who don't walk in the truth. And what is truth? I must conclude that if anything contradicts the things that the New Testament writers teach us, or if it goes beyond what they teach then it is not truth or at the least its an unnecessary doctrine the will only cause quarrels, and that in itself seems to be a sign, that those who hold onto such things lack discernment. Im unsure what to think about this, I could go into a few particulars, things that seem to be examples of apostasy, but im afraid that it will only cause quarrels and would not do any good anyway. So I just keep calm, stay quiet and set my affections on heaven.
The traditions of the Church are harmless and not demanded.
However, the veneration of Mary for example is not merely tradition, it's true blue Church Dogma, and I think non-Catholics tend to mix the two up sometimes.
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?