A
- Status
S
st_felicity
Guest
As I said “over there”–Judas didn’t like how Jesus was handling his kingdom. Jesus was humiliated and crucified, and from that degridation came our Salvation.
The Church is in the hands of the Almighty. I trust He knows how to bring redemption from degridation.
M
mercygate
Guest
Give him a couple of years: R-C-I-A.
He’s definitely flirting with death when he flirts with the validity of the liturgy and begins to challenge the validity of Protestant views of the Eucharist. He has a few miles to go but he’s on the journey. Let’s hope he makes it all the way Home before dark.
S
SPH1
Guest
Still too much private judgment. Whenever one doesn’t like what the hierarchy does, more factionalism. The hierarchy would have to have acknowledged divine support for obedience.
It also assumes that man is building the Church instead of Christ.
S
st_felicity
Guest
You can’t fight Truth.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I have read much of what has been written in the Reformer-sphere in the wake of Francis Beckwith’s resignation as President and then as a member from the Evangelical Theological Society and the conversion of both he and his wife to Catholicism. Here is what Beckwith said:
My Return to the Catholic Church
My Resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society
I do not think factionalism is where Mr Wallace and his friend Mr Patton are going. Although if the past 500+ years is anything to go by, that may well be where they end up.
Since it is very difficult to pin either of them down to saying what they mean, it has taken a lot of hunting to put the puzzle pieces together to get at what they want. But sooner or later we CAF folks catch em and quote em.
continued…
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
It seems to me that their main thrust these days is not theological but political. And that political thrust is toward something akin to:
- replacing the Catholic Church with an All-new Unified Communion of Reformers (Sola Scriptura eliminates the Catholic Church); and
- obviously, if they are replacing the Catholic Church, then they will need a pope; so we have
tuh-duh! - The Evangelical Pope of the All-new Unified Communion of Reformers!
I just wonder who that will end up being.
Thoughts?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
If the thrust of Pen & Parchment brothers were theological, then they would be leaving no stone unturned (sorry, I didn’t mean you, Stone 
) to make their points.
But quite frequently, instead of clarification, you will run into “I do not want to debate this” as a response to questions.
It was the differences in approach depending on which audience is at hand which alerted me to the political nature of the rhetoric. Compare these for example. (If your screen shows up all black, then press CTRL/A):
Walking Away from Protestantism: Francis Beckwith Converts to Catholicism
What Has Become of Evangelicalism? An Evangelical’s Lament
Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battleground Begun to Change?
Now note what Mr Patton asks us to swallow about Softening of Language here in post 1:
Letter to Pope Benedict
) to make their points.But quite frequently, instead of clarification, you will run into “I do not want to debate this” as a response to questions.
It was the differences in approach depending on which audience is at hand which alerted me to the political nature of the rhetoric. Compare these for example. (If your screen shows up all black, then press CTRL/A):
Walking Away from Protestantism: Francis Beckwith Converts to Catholicism
What Has Become of Evangelicalism? An Evangelical’s Lament
Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battleground Begun to Change?
Now note what Mr Patton asks us to swallow about Softening of Language here in post 1:
That is the approach with us at CAF. But look how that approaches changes dramatically here:
Letter to Pope Benedict
continued…
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
The Black Knight in Monty Python’s Search for the Holy Grail thought he could.
M
mtr01
Guest
My comment on the blogsite:
I have to agree with Vance. Regardless of the definition of sola scriptura, it has, as admitted in the blog, led to 30,000 denominations. Mr. (Dr?) Wallace admits that there must be some form of accountability in this ideal universal church. However, as long as sola scriptura is the lynch-pin for doctrine, there will always be those who will disagree over the interpretation of scripture and leave the church for something that agrees with their own sensibility and personal interpretation…especially in the West.
What is needed is a true sense of accountability. Let’s say for example that this ideal universal church can make the case of it’s having been built by Christ himself, and derives its authority directly from Him. Furthermore, because the ideal church was instituted by Our Lord, it would be free from error when interpreting Scripture (for our God is not the God of confusion). Now we’re starting to get at true accountability because to leave Christ’s own church, or deny its interpretation is to pridefully turn one’s back on Christ himself.
Oh wait, there is an ideal universal church that already makes these claims
Sadly, it is exactly because of the Protestant reformation and sola scriptura that we here in the West have lost this sense of accountability. As a result, no church which is based on sola scriptura could be universal, much less ideal.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Much of what the Brothers Two have to say these days is about unity. I wonder how realistic it is to expect the spirit of division which has given birth to 30 000 denoms and many more non-denoms to suddenly see the light and unite? Perhaps it would take a great leader; one with huge charisma to heal such rebellion, error, and doubt.
Oh wait! We already have such a leader! Our Pope!
Awwww… too bad he does not believe in Sola Scriptura. But why would he, if Sola Scriptura fosters 30 000 denoms and many more non-denoms and literally millions of souls in isolation, each clamoring for uniqueness, specialness, and stature – like the stars there are so many. And like the stars, all in darkness.
C
cpayne
Guest
I nominate Truthstalker. In fact, I’m already getting yard signs printed.*]The Evangelical Pope of the All-new Unified Communion of Reformers!
I just wonder who that will end up being.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
S
st_felicity
Guest
Well–Apparently because someone on that blog called my post an “invective,” I have lost posting priveledges.–Here’s the response i guess they have to “check out” to be sure I’m not hurting anyone’s “feelings”
My original post:
My original post:
S
st_felicity
Guest
And the post I guess they’ll decide to include or not…:ehh:
Nick N.
***From NN:
Felicity,
Your invective against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads me to believe that you aren’t all that familiar with what the doctrine actually purports. But in reference to your comment: ***
RESPONSE:
I apologize if my comment came across as “invective”—that certainly wasn’t intentional. I am familiar with the varied and sundry positions on what “sola scriptura” actually means—I believe part of the problem with the “doctrine” is exactly what Wallace describes—no authority that has apostolic credentials is in place to set an objective standard.
***From NN:
What I can provide you with is the very sense of what Sola Scriptura purports (namely the sufficiency and authority of Scripture) from the words of Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius.
I’ll provide the references and if you are genuinely interested you can do the leg work.
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechitical Lectures, 4.17 [CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 4 (Cyril of Jerusalem)]](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm]) ***
RESPONSE:
The only thing in 4.7 that references scripture is, “7. …remember thou what is written in the Gospels, that none knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any the Father save the Son.” In what way are you interpreting this to say that Scriptures are sufficient? You tell me to do the “leg work,” but I question whether you even read you own sources.
***From NN:
and 5.12 [CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 5 (Cyril of Jerusalem)]](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm]) ***
RESPONSE:
5.12 is about the creed—not about scriptures. And in the first line it specifically says, “12. But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures.” If anything, that reference says that the Church is sufficient because it has the been fortified by the Scriptures.
***From NN:Athanasius. Against the Heathen, Part 1.3; Part 3.45.2-3 [CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Heathen (Athanasius)]](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm]) ***
RESPONSE:
And Athanasius is talking about the LOGOS—Word of God—AKA: JESUS! Did YOU read your own rebuttal sources? One has to wonder…maybe you thought I wouldn’t read them? This is very confusing. You offer nothing of support for considering Scriptures alone sufficient and yet claim you do.
You know, the scripture is perfectly sufficient in one thing—letting believers know that they need more than the scriptures alone. One merely has to look in the Bible to find evidence that the Scriptures alone are NOT sufficient except in that the scriptures clearly indicate one needs the Church and Sacred Tradition.
1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15 , 2 John 12, 3 John 13, 1 Cor. 11:2, Matthew 18:17-18…many many more.
Hence—If the Bible clearly and repeatedly demonstrates a magisterial hierarchy, and that the followers of Christ are to hold fast to the teachings conveyed both in writing and given orally—AND the Bible demonstrates that the traditions were expounded upon when those in the teaching authority could meet with the Christians face to face, I believe I am justified in saying that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine that is anti-Biblical. It is not offering invective, it is offering the truth. You do not have to rely on early Church Fathers to determine Sola Scriptura is false—the Bible tells you so.
Nick N.
***From NN:
Felicity,
Your invective against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads me to believe that you aren’t all that familiar with what the doctrine actually purports. But in reference to your comment: ***
RESPONSE:
I apologize if my comment came across as “invective”—that certainly wasn’t intentional. I am familiar with the varied and sundry positions on what “sola scriptura” actually means—I believe part of the problem with the “doctrine” is exactly what Wallace describes—no authority that has apostolic credentials is in place to set an objective standard.
***From NN:
What I can provide you with is the very sense of what Sola Scriptura purports (namely the sufficiency and authority of Scripture) from the words of Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius.
I’ll provide the references and if you are genuinely interested you can do the leg work.
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechitical Lectures, 4.17 [CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 4 (Cyril of Jerusalem)]](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm]) ***
RESPONSE:
The only thing in 4.7 that references scripture is, “7. …remember thou what is written in the Gospels, that none knows the Son but the Father, neither knows any the Father save the Son.” In what way are you interpreting this to say that Scriptures are sufficient? You tell me to do the “leg work,” but I question whether you even read you own sources.
***From NN:
and 5.12 [CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 5 (Cyril of Jerusalem)]](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm]) ***
RESPONSE:
5.12 is about the creed—not about scriptures. And in the first line it specifically says, “12. But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures.” If anything, that reference says that the Church is sufficient because it has the been fortified by the Scriptures.
***From NN:Athanasius. Against the Heathen, Part 1.3; Part 3.45.2-3 [CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Heathen (Athanasius)]](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm]) ***
RESPONSE:
And Athanasius is talking about the LOGOS—Word of God—AKA: JESUS! Did YOU read your own rebuttal sources? One has to wonder…maybe you thought I wouldn’t read them? This is very confusing. You offer nothing of support for considering Scriptures alone sufficient and yet claim you do.
You know, the scripture is perfectly sufficient in one thing—letting believers know that they need more than the scriptures alone. One merely has to look in the Bible to find evidence that the Scriptures alone are NOT sufficient except in that the scriptures clearly indicate one needs the Church and Sacred Tradition.
1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15 , 2 John 12, 3 John 13, 1 Cor. 11:2, Matthew 18:17-18…many many more.
Hence—If the Bible clearly and repeatedly demonstrates a magisterial hierarchy, and that the followers of Christ are to hold fast to the teachings conveyed both in writing and given orally—AND the Bible demonstrates that the traditions were expounded upon when those in the teaching authority could meet with the Christians face to face, I believe I am justified in saying that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine that is anti-Biblical. It is not offering invective, it is offering the truth. You do not have to rely on early Church Fathers to determine Sola Scriptura is false—the Bible tells you so.
S
st_felicity
Guest
Careful you don’t spout anything that may be interpreted as “invective.”
(In other words–don’t disagree too much
)
S
st_felicity
Guest
Ah–someone let it get posted–apparently I “passed muster.” Yay for me!
Yay for me!
M
mtr01
Guest
Are you suggesting that I “soften my language?”Careful you don’t spout anything that may be interpreted as “invective.”
S
st_felicity
Guest
Begin each post with a rousing chorus of Kumbya–or maybe start with… “I’m probably wrong, but…” and continue with several apologies for Catholic doctrine throughout–and make sure you frequently compliment the other posters for their insightful theological commentary while ignoring all the ignorant assumptions about Catholic theology and the blatent anti-Catholic “invective.”Are you suggesting that I “soften my language?”
:barf:- Status