Once the decision is made that "the traditions of man" and "fallible sources" are a MORE RELIABLE platform than the infallible source "scripture" -- the door is wide open to error and the stage set for The Dark Ages!
History anyone?
In Christ,
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed - how "nice" for your argument if we could PRETEND that the "man's-tradition over scripture" experiment HAD NOT already been tried!!
Obviously your argument "needs" us to pretend the experiment HAD NOT already been tried. To pretend that "It just might work so lets give it a try".
How sad.
In Christ,
Bob
Sola Scripture?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by nate, Apr 17, 2006.
Page 11 of 16
-
-
Then I argue that John is the ONLY infallible SOURCE in that mix -- Polycarp IS NOT his equal NEITHER is there ANY claim to infallibility in what Polycarp writes AS WE HAVE in the case of John.
BUT STILL you want to dump John for Polycarp??!!!
How "odd" Matt.
Plolycarp IS fallible John's writings ARE NOT!!! Why is this concept so difficult for you Matt?
In Christ,
Bob -
Can someone share with me...
E...C...F stands for what?
Thanks,
Mike -
-
DHK,
Thanks!
I knew from the way it was being used that it must mean something like that, but I just wasnt sure exactly what it meant.
Mike -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Then I argue that John is the ONLY infallible SOURCE in that mix -- Polycarp IS NOT his equal NEITHER is there ANY claim to infallibility in what Polycarp writes AS WE HAVE in the case of John.
BUT STILL you want to dump John for Polycarp??!!!
How "odd" Matt.
Plolycarp IS fallible John's writings ARE NOT!!! Why is this concept so difficult for you Matt?
In Christ,
Bob </font>[/QUOTE]No, you misunderstand the argument. John's Gospel is infallible. However, it contains material such as that in my example which can be and indeed has been interpreted in more than one way. Polycarp and Ignatius, whilst fallible like ourselves, provide an interpretation which, because they knew John personally and indeed were discipled by him, is far more likely to be correct than our own various interpretations some 1900 years later.
So, just to be clear, there is certainly no 'dumping of John for Polycarp'; rather, Polycarp helps explain John -
So although we can not trust ourselves to read the infallible words of John - WE CAN trust ourselves to read the FALLIBLE words of Polycarp many years later and TRUST HIM to fallibly interpret John!
I get that part of your argument.
My argument is that my ability to read Polycarp IS NO BETTER than my ability to read John!!
But only JOHN's writing is infallible. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
But go back to my White House press-spokesman analogy:
-
Sola Scriptura comes naturally from the Truth that:
1) Human beings are sinful and weak and cannot see even behind one paper.
2) God is righteous and Omni-Present,Omni-Scient, Omni-Potent
3) Bible Scripture is the Words of God.
What if any human traditions contradict Scripture?
Any objection to Sola Scriptura comes from the disobedience to God, and from paganism, polytheism.
[ April 24, 2006, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ] -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Matt,
Eliyahu said...
While God goes right on teaching truth. In Acts the regular folk there were judging the "hierarchy" of that day by taking it upon themselves to test everything the apostle Paul taught against the scriptures, to make sure it lined up.
But Rome commands its people that they are to NEVER do that, but rather blindly accept their interpretations.
Just like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons and David Koresh.
Mike -
nor can the church (ie in the Roman sense of the word) give an infallible interpretation (though of course they can be correct, that is, their fallibility, as above, does not necessitate error) because it's history reveals the lack of the very thing they claim to have, and so we have "infallible" popes opposing one another, anathematizing one another etc, if the RC church really was what they claim to be, there wouldn't be so much evidence to the contrary for their position...
blessings,
Ken -
So although we can not trust ourselves to read the infallible words of John - WE CAN trust ourselves to read the FALLIBLE words of Polycarp many years later and TRUST HIM to fallibly interpret John!
I get that part of your argument.
My argument is that my ability to read Polycarp IS NO BETTER than my ability to read John!!
But only JOHN's writing is infallible.Click to expand...Matt said --
Thus when John writes "Jesus said 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no part of me'" (Statement A) and Ignatius his disciple and appointed successor writes about the Real PresenceClick to expand...
#1. Christ is the one speaking in John 6. Not John. Christ speaks "infallibly" - we all agree.
#2. THEN John TELLS us what Christ said - John writes "infallibly".
#3. Polycarp IS NEVER said to be "John's Successor" -- at least not by John. But it is easy to see why one might want to "make that up".
#4. Polycarp is NEVER said to be "infallible"!! The Infallible chain is lost AS SOON as the infallible writing of John reports to US the infallible words of Christ. ALL those left are "FALLIBLE"!!
REFUSING to read the INFALLIBLE source "John" (as if you can not read him) but then ACCEPTING the FALLIBLE source Polycarp is to "invite error by the truckload".
As Paul stated in Acts 20 - the ERROR was to come in "AS SOON AS HE LEFT" the church!
As Paul stated in 2Tim 1 - He left Timothy at Ephesus BECAUSE doctrinal ERROR was aLREADY at work in the church. We see the same point made again by Paul in Titus 1.
The "Holy grail HOPE" that NO ERROR existed until after Polycarp WAS ALREADY refuted by Paul IN the NT TEXT ITSELF!!
So my initial point above - stands. Your "trade" that selects an FALLIBLE source INSTEAD of an infallible source merely INTRODUCES more indirection, more gaps, more risk!
And the "dark ages" already show the result.
In Christ,
Bob -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite SupporterOriginally posted by D28guy:
Matt,
Eliyahu said...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sola Scriptura comes naturally from the Truth that:
1) Human beings are sinful and weak and cannot see even behind one paper.Click to expand...
"So they cannot provide an infallible interpretation as individuals."Click to expand...and live in a fancy "castle" in Rome.
But Rome commands its people that they are to NEVER do that, but rather blindly accept their interpretations.
Click to expand... -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite SupporterOriginally posted by epistemaniac:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So they cannot provide an infallible interpretation as individuals.Click to expand...
nor can the church (ie in the Roman sense of the word) give an infallible interpretation (though of course they can be correct, that is, their fallibility, as above, does not necessitate error) because it's history reveals the lack of the very thing they claim to have, and so we have "infallible" popes opposing one another, anathematizing one another etc, if the RC church really was what they claim to be, there wouldn't be so much evidence to the contrary for their position...
blessings,
KenClick to expand... -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite SupporterOriginally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
So although we can not trust ourselves to read the infallible words of John - WE CAN trust ourselves to read the FALLIBLE words of Polycarp many years later and TRUST HIM to fallibly interpret John!
I get that part of your argument.
My argument is that my ability to read Polycarp IS NO BETTER than my ability to read John!!
But only JOHN's writing is infallible.Click to expand...Matt said --
Thus when John writes "Jesus said 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no part of me'" (Statement A) and Ignatius his disciple and appointed successor writes about the Real PresenceClick to expand...
#1. Christ is the one speaking in John 6. Not John. Christ speaks "infallibly" - we all agree.</font>[/QUOTE]Why is that a 'fallacy'? I never said that John 'said' it, I said he 'wrote' it
#2. THEN John TELLS us what Christ said - John writes "infallibly".Click to expand...
#3. Polycarp IS NEVER said to be "John's Successor" -- at least not by John. But it is easy to see why one might want to "make that up".Click to expand...
#4. Polycarp is NEVER said to be "infallible"!!Click to expand...
I'm really not sure of the point you were trying to make, other than to use it as yet another excuse to vent your obsession with the Roman Catholics, which is not the issue under discussion here.
[ETA - for the record, anyone else who wants to use this thread as an excuse to bang on about the Roman Catholic Church and the Inquisition is going to get either sections of the relevant Monty Python sketch quoted at them or a rather novel impression of Gollum from Lord of the Rings from me in return - the Catholic Church is not what this thread is about.
You have been warned! ] -
Originally posted by nate:
God knows how many believers were in Asia, in India since the first century AD thru 16 c AD. but the people start to realize there existed millions of believers in India, China, Mongolia, Armenia, etc. They may have had their own tradition, which is Truth if the traditions of the churches are different and contradict each other?Click to expand...
.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
You don't know the discoveries in Asia.
Check this out:
http://www.edessa.com/history/monument.htm
http://keikyo.com/ (Japanese)
http://www.aina.org/books/mokk/mokk.htm#c1
http://www.edessa.com/
Warning !
you are blinded. -
The Infallible chain is lost AS SOON as the infallible writing of John reports to US the infallible words of Christ. ALL those left are "FALLIBLE"!!Click to expand...
-
Any objection to Sola Scriptura comes from the disobedience to God, and from paganism, polytheism.Click to expand...
But it's the Apostles and Teachers who are also to "equip" the holy ones of God, that "we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ," and not "be tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery" and "that we may no longer be infants" (Eph 4:11-14).
Page 11 of 16