Oh for goodness sake stop crying.First, thank you.
What you say is true, but I hope folks will give me a little room to wiggle out when I foot-in-mouth, so I try to do the same.
I hope that isn’t because they couldn’t if they wanted to. :bighanky:
Jon
**2 Corinthians 11 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds…
I guess you prefer the sugar-coat and someone to do the work for you? If the truth turns you off; then you MAY be part of the many, who are merrily on the way to hell IMO.
**
**Perhaps you would believe Irenaeus "“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” [1]
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." [1]"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition". [4]
The Church has a hierarchy as we see in the NT (bishops are overseers) and through the bishops who were apostles and disciples of Jesus we have apostolic succession. It is to these people that authority to interpret the scripture was given, because they were told how to interpret the “Word of God” by Jesus himself (this is Sacred Tradition of which you refuse to believe in), that is why Jesus says to the apostles, paraphrasing here, “whoever listens to you listens to me”.
**As expected; words without any substance.
**Scripture consists of all special revelation from God, whether the written OT, oral teaching of the gospel, or by epistle; which were all put into a book, called the Bible.
Who said anything about Scripture Alone?
What is? You exclusively?
Thank God for that and for the Reformaion.
Hmmm…Tough call, I know. . .I’m not surprised at all.
**
You’ve just proven my point that the apostles and Jesus’s disciples were the one’s given the authority to interpret the Bible correctly (many of passages you quoted were directed to the apostles only). And I of course having the Holy Spirit must look to the church (Sacred Tradition) for truth and from there look at scripture to verify this truth (do you recall the Bereans who looked to scripture after Paul who had been taught by Peter had preached to them the teachings/interpretation of Christ only to find he was telling the truth). That is why Tanner the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth for her very foundation was built on men who were taught by Jesus and so passed down these teachings to each succeeding generation through apostolic succession. Furthermore many many people couldn’t read back then so they needed the help of the Church to teach and interpret scripture for them. And do you recall when Philip helped the confused Ethiopian to interpret what he was reading, this is the apostolic authority I was telling you of. God bless.
** I would agree if were in accord to Scripture, but the rest clarifies that he was defending against those that made a claim to the apostolic message, which is the gospel, and he is unmasking them because they preach another gospel.**
Since Irenaeus was cited, I think what else he had to say may be worth noting.
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter
We do put to confusion all those who assemble in unauthorized meetings;[we do this I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious apostles, Peter and Paul . . . .The Blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, comitted into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place of the Apostles, Clement . . . Against Heresies 3, 1, 1, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:414; and, 3,3,2-3 in ANF 1:415-16].
Hmmm. . . is any of that an appeal to the Scriptures?
Tertullian (also cited before) says:
"Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to be handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we say to them: let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that the first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some on of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clemeent was ordained by Peter. In this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles.
Make of it what you will, but it sounds like Apostolic Succession to me, without an appeal to the Scriptures . . . .
Clement: "After the death of the tyrant, the [Apostle John] came back again to Ephesus from the Island of Patmos; and, upon being invited, he went even to the neighboring cities of the pagans, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, and there to ordain to the clerical estate such as were designated by the Spirit (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 42:2 [inter 190-210 A.D.]). Clement knew who really ordains pastors.
**Citations please; I’m sure they are from internal sources within the Catholic Church…huummm. Never mind; it is probably accurate and you would not intentionally leave anything out or add to; that would not be very Catholic.
**Actually, you have proven you don’t believe God and His promise to lead each individual to His special revelation via the Holy Spirit, which resides in true believers and not with an institution; particulary one that usurps the authority of the Trinity, IMO.
Well if your opinions were authoritative and therefore valid I would give a **** but it isn’t so I don’t.
No where in the quote does he state anything about Scriptures. You want evidence? Look again at the citation you provided. Note the absence of “scriptures”, “writings” or even, “memoirs.” He is contrasting the Apostles doctrine with that of heretics, certainly not the Scriptures and heretical Scriptures. If he means this, it is no where clear in this citation. Read into it as you wish, just don’t expect anyone to be taken in by such “reasoning.”
I Clement 1, ANF, 1:5. You can find it online at www.earlychristianwritings.com too.
So you cite the ECF’s when it supports you (or when you think it does) but when they have a contrary opinion to you it is: “where is that in the Scriptures?”