L
lanman87
Guest
So you could say he bowed to the will of the church (if you define church as The people of God).
- Status
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
And they were wrong. They invented doctrines like sola fide, jettisoned books from the Bible, and made themselves into their own dictatorial little popes (even though they’d have hated the term).HopkinsReb:
Well, the reformers believed (and still believe) they are speaking the truth and the Catholic church is in error. Basically you have two groups pointing fingers and each other and going “you are wrong”, “no you are wrong” and on and on…
But, again, if your definition of tradition leads to correct doctrine, how do Calvin and Luther disagree so much on important questions? It goes back to the point I’ve made over and over again: the Bible is hard to interpret, and you can find writings from the early Church to support almost any position. You can come up with just about any doctrine you want unless you have a well-defined view of authority, and the only well-defined view of authority is that official Church teachings are authoritative.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Okay, I see I still failed to make my meaning clear. I wasn’t asking about what the term “solo scriptura” designates. I knew that already from the link you posted. I was asking about the origin of the term itself. Forget it.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Unfortunately, the Church Christ (and Peter and Paul) established was visible and heirarchical. And Luther was in rebellion against the Western part of it.Vonsalza:
So you could say he bowed to the will of the church (if you define church as The people of God).
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
It is my understanding that the early reformers actually kept the Deuterocannon books in the Bible but put an asterisk by them saying they didn’t meet the full standards of Canonical books. Which is essentially what Saint Jerome did when he translated the Vulgate.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
And here’s the issue: you can always find a Church Father or two to support an approach. You can find Church Fathers to support Arianism, too.
This is why “Tradition” must refer to the official teachings of the Church, not to “stuff various Church Fathers wrote about at some point.”
L
lanman87
Guest
Well, it was always visible whenever Christians met together and it became hierarchical as local churches started electing Monarchical/Metropolitan Bishops.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It was visible from the moment Christ appointed Apostles…Vonsalza:
Well, it was always visible whenever Christians met together and it became hierarchical as local churches started electing Monarchical/Metropolitan Bishops.
If you disagreed with them, you were wrong - by definition.
The Catholic Church is an heir of this Apostolic lineage, whether you like it or not.
L
lanman87
Guest
Are any church father who support Arianism consider to be a Saint and a Doctor of the Church?
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
None that I know of. But why are you trusting the Catholic Church’s definition of who is a Saint and a Doctor of the Church, when you reject their definition of the canon of Scripture and plenty of other teachings?HopkinsReb:
Are any church father who support Arianism consider to be a Saint and a Doctor of the Church?
You have to cherry-pick if you accept “tradition” to refer generally to the Church Fathers’ teachings, because there were loads of major disagreements.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I only caution you to realize that Christ didn’t write a bible.
He instituted a living Church. Complete with visible, heirarchical, authoritative leadership.
He instituted a living Church. Complete with visible, heirarchical, authoritative leadership.
H
Hodos
Guest
With regard to the OP, I would say that there are some who believe in “Solo” scriptura and claim it as their definition of Sola Scriptura. I would say that they have a flawed understanding of the principle of Sola Scriptura and have given in a definition that is at odds with the historical definition and practice of Sola Scriptura. As such it is an incorrect definition, and leads to some weird stances. So the example that I have given before, and still stand by this example, is that there are many people who have false definitions of the Trinity, defining the Trinity in Modalistic terms. The fact that they are ignorant of the historic definition of the doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t change the definition of the Trinity. It only demonstrates that they are ignorant of what it says. So in reference to the OP, I would say that those who believe in the historical definition of Sola Scriptura do not reject tradition outright. They do hold that the scriptures are the only infallible (emphasis mine) revelation of God possessed by the Church, and that where scripture and some other authority for doctrine or practice (such as tradition or magisterial authority) come into conflict, then scripture must be the rule and norm of faith that trumps the competing authority. Tradition and scripture frequently compliment one another, but not always. This is demonstrated by Christ himself through scripture. I hope that helps.
L
lanman87
Guest
He used people to write “God Breathed” text. That is what differentiates Scripture from tradition. Scripture is God breathed, Tradition is not. Unless you consider the rulings of the Magesterium to also be God Breathed and equal to Scripture. If that is the case then why even have Scripture and just let the Magesterium tell us what is in the Gospel.
H
Hodos
Guest
This verbiage was coined to describe the frequent canard made by those who attack the false definition of Sola Scriptura that says that all other forms of authority are ignored. I hope that helps.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
The idea is that Scripture is basically part of the Magisterium; it’s the earliest authoritative writings of the Church. It’s not that Magisterium is equal to Scripture or superior to it; it’s that they’re one and the same.Vonsalza:
He used people to write “God Breathed” text. That is what differentiates Scripture from tradition. Scripture is God breathed, Tradition is not. Unless you consider the rulings of the Magesterium to also be God Breathed and equal to Scripture. If that is the case then why even have Scripture and just let the Magesterium tell us what is in the Gospel.
L
lanman87
Guest
So would you say that the Magisterium decisions are God Breathed?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Why did Jesus intend to rely on a bible that wasn’t going to be finished for 60 years after his death and canonized until 350 years after his death for people who weren’t going to be commonly literate enough to read it for 1800 years after his death?Vonsalza:
He used people to write “God Breathed” text. That is what differentiates Scripture from tradition. Scripture is God breathed, Tradition is not. Unless you consider the rulings of the Magesterium to also be God Breathed and equal to Scripture. If that is the case then why even have Scripture and just let the Magesterium tell us what is in the Gospel.
Have you ever thought about that?
This is why he established a living Church that the gates of hell would never triumph over… His words, not mine.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
Just pointing out that someone who had the same opinion as Luther (and probably where Luther’s opinion came from) is considered in high esteem by the Catholic church.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
He is held in high esteem. He is also not held to be infallible. But the Church, in its official teachings, is.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
- Status