Mary Was Just A Woman

[Guest LadyC]

early Fathers admit a material sufficiency of the Bible but it maintains that Tradition, Church and Scripture are inseparable.

but that is not what GOD says... and His word is a bit more credible than the RCC. that's as far as i read of your post, because it's a pointless waste of time to read arguments that are not Biblically founded. i've asked you to provide scriptural support, and you can't, or won't... because in your mind, scripture is not the final authority. goodnight all, it's late.

[apothanein kerdos]

Assissi, again, I'm waiting. Why did the fathers appeal solely to scripture and not to tradition if the two are equal? You did not answer that in your rambling.

Maybe you forget that the idea of "apostolistic tradition" comes from the gnostics, and this was countered by scripture with the early apologists.

It takes an understanding of the original languages, history, context, and the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture...not the RCC. The RCC has been wrong many times and continues to hold doctrines that contradict scripture. Yes, tradition and scripture can be equally important, however when the two conflict we must inherently turn to scripture as the early church fathers did. One can say, "Yes, this is a doctrine of the apostles" yet if it does not match up with the Bible then that person is a liar. At least, that's how the early church treated the issue.

[Pax]

Horizon,

It's always good to hear from you. I must admit you do know a few things about the Catholic Church, and I might add you are at times somewhat accurate with history. I'm still curious what denomination you belong to, and find it interesting that you won't say. It's almost like you are trying to hide something.

Pax

[Smalcald]

Well we all read Holy scripture through the lens of our own particular teachings within our traditions, whether we realize it or not, and our own experiences.

There is no doubt when Martin Luther attempted to reform the Church, he did not have in mind the multitude of denominations and scriptural interpretations we have today within Christianity. In fact he argued against the fanatics and heretics who he said destroyed the Sacraments as much as he did the pope.

[halifaxchristian]

Well we all read Holy scripture through the lens of our own particular teachings within our traditions, whether we realize it or not, and our own experiences.

There is no doubt when Martin Luther attempted to reform the Church, he did not have in mind the multitude of denominations and scriptural interpretations we have today within Christianity.  In fact he argued against the fanatics and heretics who he said destroyed the Sacraments as much as he did the pope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No offense, but I don't care what martin luther said...he was greatly used of God to get the ball rolling in the right direction and I am not minimizing his godly efforts...however, I CARE ONLY WHAT THE WORD OF GOD SAYS. The Catholic Church is Satanic, evil, and the greatest enemy of Christ on earth and I will stand by that statement until the day I die. Do not be decieved my friends...Mystery Babylon is alive and well.

jesus-is-lord.com, click on antichrist slideshow on the right.

A picture speaks a thousand words.

[apothanein kerdos]

Come on now, there is no need to call the Roman Catholic Church Satanic. Misguided? Yes. Off on their doctrine? Absolutely. But Satanic? Some on now. They're just as much saved as you and I are, just trapped under some non-essential doctrine.

[Smalcald]

Well we all read Holy scripture through the lens of our own particular teachings within our traditions, whether we realize it or not, and our own experiences.

There is no doubt when Martin Luther attempted to reform the Church, he did not have in mind the multitude of denominations and scriptural interpretations we have today within Christianity.  In fact he argued against the fanatics and heretics who he said destroyed the Sacraments as much as he did the pope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No offense, but I don't care what martin luther said...he was greatly used of God to get the ball rolling in the right direction and I am not minimizing his godly efforts...however, I CARE ONLY WHAT THE WORD OF GOD SAYS. The Catholic Church is Satanic, evil, and the greatest enemy of Christ on earth and I will stand by that statement until the day I die. Do not be decieved my friends...Mystery Babylon is alive and well.

jesus-is-lord.com, click on antichrist slideshow on the right.

A picture speaks a thousand words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well as a Lutheran (LCMS) I do take what Luther had to say probably more seriously than you, but his point was correct about the Sacraments, they are biblical.

But as far as listening only to the Word of God, which interpretation of the Word of God, yours?

The Word of God does not say what you are claiming about the Catholic Church so you obviously are off on your own, what else do you "interpret" in the Word of God you claim to cherish so.

You may disagree with some of their teachings, I know I do, but not all of their teachings. I don't disagree with them anymore than I disagree with some other Protestant Denominations for example.

All who truly call on Christ and have faith in Him will be saved, Catholic and Protestant alike, that is the Word of God.

[Assisi]

Assissi, again, I'm waiting. Why did the fathers appeal solely to scripture and not to tradition if the two are equal? You did not answer that in your rambling.

Maybe you forget that the idea of "apostolistic tradition" comes from the gnostics, and this was countered by scripture with the early apologists. 

It takes an understanding of the original languages, history, context, and the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture...not the RCC. The RCC has been wrong many times and continues to hold doctrines that contradict scripture. Yes, tradition and scripture can be equally important, however when the two conflict we must inherently turn to scripture as the early church fathers did. One can say, "Yes, this is a doctrine of the apostles" yet if it does not match up with the Bible then that person is a liar. At least, that's how the early church treated the issue. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please do not skip over what i have provided here. The protestant Historical Scholars were correct when they say that the church tradition determines the canon,and furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 60

And

If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of .Early Christian Doctrines page 47-4

The Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics.

Marcion was a Gnostic appealed exclusively to the Scripture and rejected tradition. Eusebius preserves this citation which describes the behavior of those who follow Theodotus,

"They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of the ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it."

Gnostic relied on Scripture alone and rejected the tradition of the Church. Tertullian of Carthage discovered the futility of interpreting Scripture outside of the framework of the Church and her Tradition. Tertullian writes:

"Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: 'With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?" For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions."

Prescription Against the Heretics, 19

Church History, V:28:13

St. Athanasius makes the same claim regarding the Arians. According to St. Athanasius the Arians read Scripture according to their own private lights and rejected the traditions of the Church. This is a recurring theme in the writings of the Church Fathers. According to Athanasius, the Arians' rejection of the Church tradition resulted in their divisions and heresy:

"The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, 'ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you' (1 Cor. xi. 2); but they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: 'We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their traditions.' And let them go on to accuse their own unfortunate birth, and say, 'We are sprung not of religious men but of heretics.' For such language, as I said before, is consistent in those who barter their Fathers' fame and their own salvation for Arianism, and fear not the words of the divine proverb, 'There is a generation that curseth their father' (Prov. xxx. 11; Ex. xxi. 17), and the threat lying in the Law against such. They then, from zeal for the heresy, are of this obstinate temper; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor take their audacity for truth. For they dissent from each other, and, whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various and discordant changes."

De Synodis,14

St. Basil of Ceasarea observes the same fatal flaw in those who rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit - the Pneumatomachianiststhe Spirit fighters. St. Basil writes:

"It is against us, they say, that they are preparing their engines and their snares; against us that they are shouting to one another, according to each one's strength or cunning, to come on. But the object of attack is faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of 'sound doctrine' is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,--of course bona fide debtors.--they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers."

Holy Spirit,10:25

This is as clear as you can get contrasting the rule of faith between Catholics and heretics. The Pneumatomachianists, like the Arians and Gnostics, appealed to the Scriptures alone and rejected the tradition of the Church!

Here is a good example for Protestants to read since they continue to defend Scriptue alone.

St. Augustine finds the wayward principle in the Pelagians and Arians. Pelagius expresses himself as follows: "What we read, therefore, let us believe; and what we do not read, let us deem it wicked to add; and let it suffice to have said this of all cases."

Nature and Grace,46[39]

In other words, Pelagius would only admit what is read within the pages of Holy Writ; hence, like the heretics before him rejected tradition. In the latter part of St. Augustine's life, St. Augustine was involved in an oral debate with an Arian bishop - Maximinus. Maximinus proclaims at the very start of the exchange:

"I did not come to this city in order to stage a debate with Your Holiness. Rather, I am here, sent by Count Segisvult with a view to peace ... If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstances accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts (Mt 15:9)"Debate with Maximinus,1

In other words, Maximinus rejected all traditional monuments such as Nicea and would only accept what was found in Scripture. Coincidentally, Maximinus appealed to 1 Tim 3:16 in defense of his Bible-only mentality:

"All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2 Tim 3:16). For that reason, not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt 5:18). The Lord said, Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away (Mt 24:35)."

Debate with Maximinus,15:16

Elsewhere, Maximinus continues to denigrate the authority of tradition and the deity of Christ:

"Even if one produces from testimonies from the divine scriptures all day long, it will not be truly counted against one as wordiness. But if one uses some literary skill or cleverness of mind and makes up words which the holy scriptures do not contain, they are both idle and superfluous."

Debate with Maximinus,13

Time and time again, Maximinus criticizes the traditional monuments such as Trinity and homoousios! Later, Maximinus challenges St. Augustine to defend the deity of the Holy Spirit's on the basis of the Scriptures-alone:

"The truth is not obtained by argumentation, but is proved by certain [scriptural] testimonies. For this reason you ought to produce [scriptural] testimonies that the Holy Spirit is God."

Debate with Maximinus,15:21

This is about as obvious as it can get

The heretic appeal to scripture and the Catholics tradition to correct the false interpretation of thes heretics.

The arch-heretic Eutyches affirmed after the Incarnation that Christ possessed only one nature not two - the divine and human nature. The Council of Chalcedon writes:

"He[Eutyches] said that he was ready to receive the decrees of the holy fathers assembled in the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, and promises to subscribe to their definitions. But if in their declarations anything by chance should be found either unsound or false, he says that he will neither reject or approve of it: but search the scripture alone as being more solid than all the decrees of the fathers."

Council of Chalcedon, Act 1

Here we find Luther all over again! What could be more different than Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arianism, Eutychianism and Pneumatomachianism? Yet, we find the formal principle of sola scriptura applied across these early heresies. The early testimony is clear - if one fails to interpret Scripture within the milieu of Tradition and replace it with a private reading of Scripture than one can come up with about anything.

Rufinus,Church History, 2:9 gives us The Antidote

"Putting aside all Greek literature, they[st. Basil and St. Gregory] are said to have passed thirteen years together in studying the Scriptures alone, and followed out their sense, not from their private opinions, but by the writings and authority of the Fathers."

[Assisi]

Well we all read Holy scripture through the lens of our own particular teachings within our traditions, whether we realize it or not, and our own experiences.

There is no doubt when Martin Luther attempted to reform the Church, he did not have in mind the multitude of denominations and scriptural interpretations we have today within Christianity.

[Smalcald]

Well Assisi, I would defend my tradition in the same way, particularly from those kind of baseless accusations. However, Buddhism and Hinduism have been around as long as the Roman Catholic Church, longevity is not an argument for Christian truth.

I think the phobia over differences is what causes some of these problems, and also a cultural history, which we now parrot and don't even recognize where these arguments come from. I certainly don't agree with the Catholic Church on some relatively large issues, but I also recognize that the New Testament itself was compiled by the Roman Catholic Church, and if the Holy Spirit guided the Church to decide which books were to be part of the New Testament and which were not, then it cannot be of Satan.

I think the current Pope, views the Catholic Church as the