H
Hodos
Guest
I do not know which statements you are referring to. It is hard for me to judge the comment you are providing here because I do not know the full context surrounding the quote that you provided.
- Status
S
steve-b
Guest
IOW since you quote nothing from Irenaeus, even when asked to quote, that tells me you haven’t read anything from Irenaeus, or YOU would quote copiously from Irenaeus.
Start quoting, and do it properly.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
Already quoted him above. And again, if you have actually read Irenaeus you would know that I am not being facetious when I say he quotes the scriptures copiously. He literally has entire sections where he quotes liberally from most of the NT and some from the Old demonstrating the false teaching of the Gnostics on a host of subjects such as how they take words frequently used in the NT and use them as names for the Aeons and demiurges, quoting the OT to demonstrate the monotheism of the Bible, etc. If your argument is that Irenaeus just wings it apart from scripture, that is a false assumption and demonstrates a lack of familiarity with Irenaeus. As I said, read it. It is worth your time as it provides an excellent understanding of the Gnostic doctrines of the 2nd-3rd Century, as well as provides the Biblical refutation of these doctrines.
I am not your secretary. Crack the book(s) open. But just to provide an example, here Ireneaus uses OT scripture to demonstrate the eternal nature of the son and quotes Psalm 45 from Hebrews 1:
And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven.”(5) For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: “Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee.”(1) For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God – both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
YOU are the one winging it. Try quoting references correctly.steve-b:
Already quoted him above. And again, if you have actually read Irenaeus you would know that I am not being facetious when I say he quotes the scriptures copiously. He literally has entire sections where he quotes liberally from most of the NT and some from the Old demonstrating the false teaching of the Gnostics on a host of subjects such as how they take words frequently used in the NT and use them as names for the Aeons and demiurges, quoting the OT to demonstrate the monotheism of the Bible, etc. If your argument is that Irenaeus just wings it apart from scripture, that is a false assumption and demonstrates a lack of familiarity with Irenaeus. As I said, read it. It is worth your time as it provides an excellent understanding of the Gnostic doctrines of the 2nd-3rd Century, as well as provides the Biblical refutation of these doctrines.
Proof you validate the criticism for not properly referencing Irenaeus.
BTW
I quoted from Hebrews 10:19-31 NOT Heb 10:1 to make my point, and I fully documented my sources to make the point.
In addition this is NOT about Irenaeus including scripture in his argument. It’s that he doesn’t use scripture ALONE to make his argument which is what you think he does…
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
You forgot to add your Works Cited page.
This is the constant red herring that is offered by Roman Catholic apologists. Sola scriptura does not say that we do not refer to other sources of authority. It says that scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith. It is perfectly acceptable to offer historical and traditional evidence to substantiate a doctrine so long as it is not contradictory to scripture. So, for example, using Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, and providing supporting evidence from the Didache or writings of Justin Martyr would be a valid use of tradition and history to demonstrate the apostolic practice of administering the Eucharist in both elements. Using medieval church justification where it contradicts the scriptures that demonstrate that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper in both elements would be a non-valid use of tradition or history. Valiant effort on your part, but another demonstration of ignorance of Protestant doctrine. You can cite me on that if you like.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Where does Scripture say that?
H
Hodos
Guest
Apparently you don’t like having to address the actual issue. All those straw men you keep erecting don’t fight back.
But if you would like an example of the danger of relying on tradition and the principle of Sola scriptura in action, refer to Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 5: 21-48; Matthew 12: 1-14; Matthew 15: 1-20; Mark 2: 23-28; Mark 7:1-23; Luke 6:1-10; Mark 7: 1-23. In each of these events Christ confronts the traditions of the Jewish elders, and demonstrates through the use of scripture that their traditions are a twisting of the scripture. Again, here we see the authority of tradition is subject to the Word of God.
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
A
Agathon
Guest
And aren’t you using your own interpretation of the text right now to make such a claim?
H
Hodos
Guest
Are you arguing that Christ did not rebuke people for elevating traditions over God’s word in Mark 7 or Matthew 15? That isn’t my personal interpretation. That is objective fact based on the clear reading of the passages. This “that’s your personal interpretation” nonsense is a cop out answer. The text says what it says, and it says it regardless of whether it is me reading it or you.
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
Christ specifically spoke of manmade traditions, like Corban. He wasn’t condemning Tradition specifically. Here’s the text in question:
“ He said to them, ‘Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
“This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.”
You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.’
Then he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, “Honour your father and your mother”; and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban” (that is, an offering to God) then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.’
Jesus is talking about traditions of men, not traditions of God. Everything we believe has been handed on from generation to generation.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
First of all, the Word of God is a Divine Person of the Blessed Trinity and not a sole collection of inspired books.
Second, all Divine Revelation was encapsulated in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word of God. That Revelation has been transmitted through Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The Bible alone confirms this and nowhere in Scripture does it state that it alone is the sole infallible rule of faith. So, ironically, ‘sola scriptura’ is a man-made, 16th century tradition of men.
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
Matthew 5:21,27,31,38,43 ESV
Notice: in every verse it states, “You have heard that it was said”, not written. Also, in Matthew 5:43 where it quotes, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy”, show me where Scripture ever commanded anyone to ‘hate your enemy’.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
Yep. He sure did, ergo tradition not infallible. God’s Word is. Now let’s examine two recent traditions passed off as apostolic:
God’s Word: 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NIV
[23] For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” [25] In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [26] For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. …
RCC practice: Eucharist in one kind is cool.
God’s Word: Genesis 2:16-17 NIV
[16] … “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; [17] but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die .” …“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
RCC practice: The death penalty is an inadmissible violation of the dignity of the individual.
God’s Word: 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NIV
[23] For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” [25] In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [26] For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. …
RCC practice: Eucharist in one kind is cool.
God’s Word: Genesis 2:16-17 NIV
[16] … “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; [17] but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die .” …“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
RCC practice: The death penalty is an inadmissible violation of the dignity of the individual.
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
I’d change my statement to “Human tradition is not infallible.”
H
Hodos
Guest
No, it’s good the way I left it.
S
steve-b
Guest
Re: Your quotesAugustTherese:
Apparently you don’t like having to address the actual issue. All those straw men you keep erecting don’t fight back.
But if you would like an example of the danger of relying on tradition and the principle of Sola scriptura in action, refer to Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 5: 21-48; Matthew 12: 1-14; Matthew 15: 1-20; Mark 2: 23-28; Mark 7:1-23; Luke 6:1-10; Mark 7: 1-23. In each of these events Christ confronts the traditions of the Jewish elders, and demonstrates through the use of scripture that their traditions are a twisting of the scripture. Again, here we see the authority of tradition is subject to the Word of God.
- Isaiah Is29:13 RSVCE - And the Lord said: “Because this - Bible Gateway
- Mt 5:21-28 Mt 5:21-28 RSVCE - Concerning Anger - “You have heard - Bible Gateway
- Mt 12:1-14 Mt 12:1-14 RSVCE - Plucking Grain on the Sabbath - At that - Bible Gateway
- Mt 15:
1-20what really answers the point Mt 12:15-17 Mt 15:17-20 RSVCE - Do you not see that whatever goes into - Bible Gateway - Mk 2:23-28 [snip for space]
- Mk 7:1-23 [ " ]
- Lk 6:1-10 [ " ]
Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit taught his listeners who are IN THE CHURCH, to
2 Thes 2:15
stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Taught by the apostles, NOT those elders who are NOT even in Our Lord’s Church…
See the difference?
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
God also established the authority of the high priesthood. They claimed the same authority that you do, and as Roman apologists point out frequently, they sat in Moses seat and Christ affirmed we should obey them. So if Christ can simultaneously establish them and rebuke them through the judicious application of God’s Word, why is Rome different? The honest answer is She isn’t different. She is still subject to the instruction and correction of God’s Word.
And again, we are seeing that though RCC tradition is always billed as apostolic, that cannot be taken at face value apart from examining the actual Biblical record that was handed down to us.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
“You will know them by their deeds.” You lose all credibility when you make ad hominems like this.
H
Hodos
Guest
Hmmm, be careful applying that standard. Speaking of knowing them by their deeds, do I need to post the recent news articles and talk about the Church’s credibility? As you can see, I had already thought better of my comment and edited. Try using even scales.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Perverted humans are one thing, perverted doctrine is another.
- Status