Sola Scriptura

[Standing Up]

Very well, but here's a point we need to remember. The theory of Tradition is not just that something is old and the church decides to say that God was behind it. More than that, for the alleged Tradition to be true--according to the theory--it must meet certain tests.

It must have been continuous from the beginning. It must have been believed throughout the Christian world, not just in a certain nation, etc. And it must have been believed by all the rank and file of the people, not just some scholars or ECFs.

Yes, and someone months ago added, you have to show how and by whom something false was introduced or substituted.

There is hardly any doctrine created through Tradition, despite all the pious talk about Tradition, that meets the definition! In the end, it's just a pick and choose what you want by the church higher-ups. And this they want us to consider to be superior to God's Word!

Is that a question

 

[Thekla]

One would be hard pressed to validate the New Testament - or even the OT - based on that standard.

In fact, the above standard is impossible to meet at all.

 

[Montalban]

As the originals of the NT and the Masoretic are not extant, no Jew and no Christian can say precisely that they "have the same".

People who follow only scripture and don't know that there's no originals around????

 

[Albion]

Yes, and someone months ago added, you have to show how and by whom something false was introduced or substituted.

He He. You are referring to the circular logic of some of our friends here, I take it. It's not part of the theological definition of Tradition.

Is that a question

No, I think I'd call it an exasperated exclamation.

 

[Montalban]

It is not the Church's teaching that Tradition is superior to Holy Scripture.

This is so often stated but the straw-man continues

Like the generalities being passed around now about how doctrine has changed

 

[Thekla]

It is not the Church's teaching that Tradition is superior to Holy Scripture.

There is persistent distortion made by non RC and EO of many factors re: RC and EO in this thread.

"Fight dirty" seems to be the norma normans reflected in this phenomenon

Persistent deliberate misreading of ECFs to suit the purpose (what was termed in the ancient times as "hypothesis", where the hypothesis is the central idea 'round which the poet wraps the text to suit his purpose), double standards, anachronistic (mis)application of self-suited rules ...

That's some kind of "tradition" these folks have. Is this really what Christianity has become ?

 

[Montalban]

He He. You are referring to the circular logic of some of our friends here, I take it. It's not part of the theological definition of Tradition.

Your own church, divided as it is internally on doctrine* has developed doctrine several times, depending upon the monarch

*-on which type of person to have as a priest, as one example.

 

[Montalban]

There is persistent distortion made by non RC and EO of many factors re: RC and EO in this thread.

"Fight dirty" seems to be the norma normans reflected in this phenomenon

I half-expect the LDS will be mentioned again.

Anyway I don't understand an attack on tradition from someone in a church of tradition - such as the Church of England - whose "High Church" looks exceptionally "Catholic"

 

[Albion]

Your own church, divided as it is internally on doctrine* has developed doctrine several times, depending upon the monarch

*-on which type of person to have as a priest, as one example.

I just hate to clue the clueless, but have you ever before seen that little flag near my name? You know, the one with thirteen stripes and fifty stars in the canton? Might you have any idea at all what it means?

 

[Montalban]

Have Protestants here now dropped their "It's not a book quoted in the NT" objection?

I'm unsure as to which is the current position being held

 

[Montalban]

I just hate to clue the clueless, but have you ever before seen that little flag near my name? You know, the one with thirteen stripes and fifty stars in the canton? Might you have any idea at all what it means?

Are you saying that the Anglican church is not in communion with the Church of England? That you are separate churches?

Furthermore has it no basis on the Act of Uniformity 1558, of Elizabeth I?

This is news to me!

It was my understanding that it stems directly from that era, and thus my statement about changing doctrine is still valid. That church changed from the form it was under Henry VIII to Edward IV to Elizabeth I.

That you've separated 'administratively' doesn't also negate the division on doctrine within the communion on which type of person to have as a priest.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is not the Church's teaching that Tradition is superior to Holy Scripture.

Agreed.
This however does not address the meat of Albion's post, but only the rhetorical flourish at the end of his post.

Tradition must be:

1. Continuous from the beginning.
2. 'Universally' believed (catholic) throughout the Christian world
3. Common belief to the body of Christian believer, and not just the erudite belief of a theologian or ECF.

In your mind, would this represent an authentic definition of Sacred Scripture?

 

[Montalban]

Albion
The fact that your particular branch isn't de jure headed by the monarch of GB doesn't in anyway negate the fact that NO SCRIPTURE has the monarch of GB heading ANY church.

Are you saying that your branch condemns the church in England for being headed by a non-biblical leader?

Even your UserName harks back to Great Britain!

 

[Thekla]

I half-expect the LDS will be mentioned again.

De rigeuer ...

Anyway I don't understand an attack on tradition from someone in a church of tradition - such as the Church of England - whose "High Church" looks exceptionally "Catholic"

The default is, RC = bad.

My late father remembers the pogroms against RCatholics in the USA, about 60 miles from his hometown (east coast) - not that long ago.

Now, instead of burning down their houses, folks here just roast them in GT in the threads.

 

[Albion]

Are you saying that the Anglican church is not in communion with the Church of England? That you are separate churches?

The Anglican Church IS the Church of England.

And guess what? You've spent about a dozen posts needling me about something or other concerning "my" church, the CofE, and all along you've been staring at an American flag. I AM AN AMERICAN.

THERE IS NO CHURCH Of ENGLAND IN THE USA.

Are you still following along?



What's more, there are many different Anglican churches in the world, and only one of them is related in any but a sentimental way to the Queen--your sovereign, not mine--or, for that matter, to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Mine is as orthodox as can be. So you lose there, too.

 

[Thekla]

The Anglican Church IS the Church of England.
Guess what? You've spent about a dozen posts needling me about something or other concerning "my" church, the CofE, and all along you've been staring at an American flag. I AM AN AMERICAN.

THERE IS NO CHURCH Of ENGLAND IN THE USA.

Are you still following along?

Wouldn't changing the head of the Church be a change ?

 

[Montalban]

Some provinces within the Anglican Communion, such as the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (TEC), the Anglican Church of New Zealand, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Australia, ordain women as deacons, priests and bishops, while a number of other provinces, as noted in the table below, have removed canonical bars to women bishops but have not yet consecrated any. Other provinces ordain women as deacons and priests but not as bishops; others still as deacons only; and seven provinces have yet to approve the ordination of women to any order of ministry.
Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason, dear reader, I am labouring this point is that it seems rather hypocritical of a person adhering to a church thus changing and divided would criticise (in general terms) other churches for doing the same thing.

I add 'in general terms' because this is another weakness of the objection. There has only be criticism of the RCC and EO in the most general of terms regarding changing of doctrine.

Whereas, I have shown specific examples, with evidence, of divisions and changes in the Anglican communion of churches.

 

[Albion]

Wouldn't changing the head of the Church be a change ?

So would changing the altar cloths from red to white be a change, I suppose. Why?

 

[Albion]

Some provinces within the Anglican Communion, such as the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (TEC), the Anglican Church of New Zealand, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Australia, ordain women as deacons, priests and bishops, while a number of other provinces, as noted in the table below, have removed canonical bars to women bishops but have not yet consecrated any. Other provinces ordain women as deacons and priests but not as bishops; others still as deacons only; and seven provinces have yet to approve the ordination of women to any order of ministry.
Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason, dear reader, I am labouring this point is that it seems rather hypocritical of a person adhering to a church thus changing and divided would criticise (in general terms) other churches for doing the same thing.

I add 'in general terms' because this is another weakness of the objection. There has only be criticism of the RCC and EO in the most general of terms regarding changing of doctrine.

Whereas, I have shown specific examples, with evidence, of divisions and changes in the Anglican communion of churches.

Except that I don't belong to any of those churches. So where does that leave your scheme? Character assassination that missed. How sad.

 

[Albion]

Has there been a power failure in Australia?