The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and Religious Activities Worldwid

But then again . . . they are Presbyterians! :laugh:

Matt: Isn't there are requirement in the Anglican Catholic Church that the water must run on the head? In other words, sprinkling with out the water running may invalidate the baptism. I had a conversation once with +++Brother John-Charles, SSF
regarding baptism and I seem to remember he mentioning this.

 

Go figure a Franciscan.

 

I personally don't disagree with you. However, I've bolded the area's that the Catholics would have a contention with. Tradition from their perspective are those issues that have been commonally practiced from the time of the apostles. Tradition is often practiced and should show a consistency of practice over the years. For a Catholic this is key. Doctrine and Dogma are generally left alone or not defined until a challenge to accepted practices and norms occures. Then it is incumbant on the Catholic Church to make a defence of what has been accepted. Often to do this they first go to scripture then to practice recorded in History. Here is a quote from a Catholic

 

I think a Catholic would respond: "what came first? The practice or the Scripture?" You're thought on the barean's was good though which scripture would have been of interest since they were Hellenized Jews.

 

I'm honestly not sure; the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer would seem to suggest that this is so (immersion, with effusion only if the child is 'weak', no mention of 'sprinkling').

 

I don't think that my definition is much different from above but IMO it makes no difference for these purposes: even if one contends that Scripture is 'sufficient' in all matters of faith, doctrine, practice and morals, my contention is still that it isn't eg: the example I gave concerning ecclesiological structures (episcopal, presbyterian or congregational) shows that it isn't sufficient with regard to practice (and some might argue with regard to doctrine too), as does my example concerning number and frequency of church services etc

 

First RB, you have to convince the class that ALL the Churches during the Apostolic Church age had a NT, just as we have today in 2009. I'll even challenge you to prove that ALL these new Churches even had a complete copy of the OT readily available.

There were NO Lifeway Christian book stores for the Apostles to run to and get a copy or no online Amazon for them to order from and certainly no Kinkos...not to be a jerk, but come on RB...use just a little common sense here.

It's a FACT, not every Church had copies of the OT, nor did every Church have a copy of what letters that make up the NT were already written. The letters, books and epistles were STILL being written as the Churches during the Apostolic Church age were being established and that's fact!

So, HOW did these Churches function? Did they do their own thing? How were they instructed?

The Early Church's had nothing physical to go back to and review...all they had was what the Apostles instructed them...orally...this is Holy Tradition...this IS what sustained the Churches throughout the Apostolic Church age...

Once the writings that make-up the NT became more accessible throughout the Churches, what safeguarded correct doctrine and kept heresy from entering the Church? Yep...Holy Tradition, that is, what has always been taught by the Church from the very beginning.

Holy Scripture is no doubt the inspired word of God and trust me RB, we Orthodox take Holy Scripture very seriously and hold these Scriptures sacred and show our respect to them every day. But still we are human and flawed and honestly RB, we can make Holy Scripture say whatever we want it to say and back it all up with Scripture references, but still that doesn't make it correct doctrine.

There has to be checks and balances...I can interpret the US Constitution, my Bill of Rights all day and make up my own laws...but how far will that get me?

In XC
-

 

And I, I believe, have demonstrated that it is not sufficient. If it is sufficient for all the matters which you claim, then there would not be these disagreements between Calvinists and Arminians, dispensationalists and covenanters, cessationists and charismatics, etc etc. The very fact that there are such disagreements in 'matters of faith, doctrine, morals and practice' demonstrates the fallacy of your argument.

You see for me the Bereans are something of a strawman: as Thinkingstuff has hinted, one has to ask what the 'Scriptures' were referred to here. They would not have included our New Testament because it had not yet been written (with the exception perhaps of one or two of Paul's early letters). And the OT they had would have been the LXX, complete with Apocrypha which most Protestants reject. So I'm not sure the Bereans are the commendable example you seem to assume.

As interpreted by whom? You are probably going to come up with a different interpretation to me, and in turnI will produce an interpretation different to that of, say, DHK, and so on. How does that produce a 'test' that is in anyway reliable?

Hmmm...see above re the Bereans; I'm really not sure I buy the rest of your argument here either. The Church existed from the Day of Pentecost and it certainly didn't have any of the NT at that point. Gradually the NT came into existence over succeeding decades but it was only in the late 4th century - way, way after the last of the Apostles died - that the Church agreed on the contents of the NT. So it still begs the question - what did the Christians in the meantime have? And if you think what the Bereans had was adequate then, since they didn't have (or apparently need) the NT, perhaps we should likewise jettison the NT from our Bibles and just use the LXX...? Surely that's not what you're saying?

 

I'm not sure I do. What does it say it is sufficient for?

With respect, you miss the point: the whole point of Apostolic authority was to maintain such order - which they and their delegated successors (eg Titus and Timothy) did.

 

By way of expansion on my penultimate post, I trust that our fellow-BBmember, Doubting Thomas, will not object if I quote from something he posted here many moons ago (one or two phrases may be paraphrased from his original):

 

If one can be in any doubt as to the Scriptural basis of this idea of Tradition, and its corollary, Apostolic Succession, then there are ample examples to support it (and forgive me if I here go over some of the Scriptural ground covered above):
Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-

1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.

2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.

3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock

4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.

Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.

 

> However, you should at least aknoweldge that the Scripture itself says its sufficient.

Jesus, himself, stated that the teachings of Moses and the prophets were sufficient for salvation.

 

Just a thought about Scriptures. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Theselonians, Ephesians, etc... would his writings have been considered immediately scripture or where they determined scripture over time and with use?