Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Mormon's Went Way Beyond Sola

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mormon's Went Way Beyond Sola

    The problem with the Sola’s is that they are not biblical. There is not a single verse of Scripture that says Scripture itself is the only authority. Not even one. But what does the Scriptures say about the Scriptures themselves? All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction and righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3-17). God incarnate and the Holy Spirit in the Church are God’s self-revelation. Scripture is the record of that revelation and the root from which tradition grows. So, the bible does say that the Scriptures are given by divine inspiration. It does say that they are profitable, they are useful for teaching and correction and without them we are not equipped and not furnished to do good works. But it does not say Scripture alone anywhere. So, I would say it fails its own test.

    We cannot recognize the Bible as the only authority and here is why. Because the bible has to be interpreted. If Scripture is the main source for revelation of Christian doctrine, reason is the main instrument for grasping, understanding, developing, and applying such doctrine. Scripture does not interpret itself. Its meaning is not self-evident. Reason is needed to understand and interpret anything, including scripture.

    The bible does not just stand alone. It is given within a context. And the context I would argue is the Church itself. The Church compiled the scriptures, the Church preserved the scriptures and the Church interprets the scriptures. The same Church that defined the Holy Trinity, the human and divine natures of Christ, is the same Church that compiled the scriptures that we enjoy every day.

    Tradition of the Church also has a kind of practical priority, because tradition summarizes the reasonable interpretation of Scripture by the many ages of the Church that have gone before us. Scripture cannot properly be separated from tradition and allowed to stand alone, not least because it was the inspired Church which decided which books should be included in Scripture and which not. Tradition, in other words, defined what is authentic Scripture and what is not. Without tradition both the content and the interpretation of Scripture will be thrown into radical doubt. Without tradition, broadly defined to include the worshiping life of the Church, Scripture has no context and is a mere, dead text.

    And the Church are really the Bishops in union with all of us in the body. We come to the scriptures together. Its just not the clergy, laity or isolated individuals. It is the Church as a whole that receives the scriptures and interprets the scriptures. The Church has a calling. The individual people (laity) has a calling to protect the faith. Not just the hierarchy, everyone has to content for the faith.

    The authority of the bible is undoubted. We believe in the authority of scripture. All of our traditions just amplify scripture. They manifest the meaning of scripture but they do not contradict scripture. So, all the pieces of tradition; the scriptures, the writings of holy church fathers, the iconography, the architecture to the ascetical works of monks and nuns that have been recorded. All of these things are part of a mosaic, all showing us the same picture. They don’t contradict each other. We don’t view the scriptures in isolation. Our interpretation of the scripture, agrees with the other aspects of holy tradition and the other aspects of holy tradition have to agrees with the scriptures. There cannot be a scenario of having to choose between the scripture versus the tradition.

    This is one of the main reasons why there are so many divisions going on in the Christian world. They interpret things differently and set up their own church. You see this in a lot of non-denominational churches . The problem is that you have every individual picking the bible apart and coming up with their own way of belief. They are personally interpreting the scriptures on their own. The Apostle Peter said no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. The holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So, the scriptures are not privately interpreted. The Church is guided by the Spirit and that is why if you look at the history of the Church, you can see an unbroken continuity from the Apostles, where we have not deviated from the faith once delivered to the Saints. But, if you compare that to Protestantism, within a few hundred years, we have 23,000 different versions of Christianity all competing with each other and contradicting each other. Someone might say, “Well I know that my interpretation is correct because the spirit is leading me”. The Spirit is not going to lead one-man way one way and another man a different way.

    Some Protestant sects regard the Bible as the source from which every one may draw his own conclusions as to the truth. What has been held in all ages by the greatest teachers counts for little, if anything, in the way of authority. According to this view, every man becomes his own interpreter of the Bible, which so used may cease to be the word of God and may become the word of man. The necessary result of such private interpretation of the Scriptures is, that an endless variety of explanations may be given as to the meaning of God's word. This is one
    form of error concerning the ascertaining of the truth.

    The CULTS are much worse! The Mormon's, Jehovah Witnesses to other Cults go way beyond the Sola's to the point of just creating a new religion and much of their doctrine goes totally against Biblical Christianity and their followers swallow it up.

    We see this a lot in many Churches that claim they know the truth. One church claims this is the truth and another church will claim a different truth and they end up contradicting each other. Would God be a God of contradictions? The answer is no. God is not a God of confusion!

    You can look at the church and you will see it’s been led down a single path for 2,000 years and we haven’t changed the faith, we have not added to the faith and we have not subtracted from the faith, because it is all precious and we want to preserve all of it. And it’s only by the grace of God living in the Church that it is preserved. So, we give Him the glory.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Paisios View Post
    The problem with the Sola’s is that they are not biblical. There is not a single verse of Scripture that says Scripture itself is the only authority. Not even one. But what does the Scriptures say about the Scriptures themselves? All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction and righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3-17). God incarnate and the Holy Spirit in the Church are God’s self-revelation. Scripture is the record of that revelation and the root from which tradition grows. So, the bible does say that the Scriptures are given by divine inspiration. It does say that they are profitable, they are useful for teaching and correction and without them we are not equipped and not furnished to do good works. But it does not say Scripture alone anywhere. So, I would say it fails its own test.

    We cannot recognize the Bible as the only authority and here is why. Because the bible has to be interpreted. If Scripture is the main source for revelation of Christian doctrine, reason is the main instrument for grasping, understanding, developing, and applying such doctrine. Scripture does not interpret itself. Its meaning is not self-evident. Reason is needed to understand and interpret anything, including scripture.

    The bible does not just stand alone. It is given within a context. And the context I would argue is the Church itself. The Church compiled the scriptures, the Church preserved the scriptures and the Church interprets the scriptures. The same Church that defined the Holy Trinity, the human and divine natures of Christ, is the same Church that compiled the scriptures that we enjoy every day.

    Tradition of the Church also has a kind of practical priority, because tradition summarizes the reasonable interpretation of Scripture by the many ages of the Church that have gone before us. Scripture cannot properly be separated from tradition and allowed to stand alone, not least because it was the inspired Church which decided which books should be included in Scripture and which not. Tradition, in other words, defined what is authentic Scripture and what is not. Without tradition both the content and the interpretation of Scripture will be thrown into radical doubt. Without tradition, broadly defined to include the worshiping life of the Church, Scripture has no context and is a mere, dead text.

    And the Church are really the Bishops in union with all of us in the body. We come to the scriptures together. Its just not the clergy, laity or isolated individuals. It is the Church as a whole that receives the scriptures and interprets the scriptures. The Church has a calling. The individual people (laity) has a calling to protect the faith. Not just the hierarchy, everyone has to content for the faith.

    The authority of the bible is undoubted. We believe in the authority of scripture. All of our traditions just amplify scripture. They manifest the meaning of scripture but they do not contradict scripture. So, all the pieces of tradition; the scriptures, the writings of holy church fathers, the iconography, the architecture to the ascetical works of monks and nuns that have been recorded. All of these things are part of a mosaic, all showing us the same picture. They don’t contradict each other. We don’t view the scriptures in isolation. Our interpretation of the scripture, agrees with the other aspects of holy tradition and the other aspects of holy tradition have to agrees with the scriptures. There cannot be a scenario of having to choose between the scripture versus the tradition.

    This is one of the main reasons why there are so many divisions going on in the Christian world. They interpret things differently and set up their own church. You see this in a lot of non-denominational churches . The problem is that you have every individual picking the bible apart and coming up with their own way of belief. They are personally interpreting the scriptures on their own. The Apostle Peter said no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. The holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So, the scriptures are not privately interpreted. The Church is guided by the Spirit and that is why if you look at the history of the Church, you can see an unbroken continuity from the Apostles, where we have not deviated from the faith once delivered to the Saints. But, if you compare that to Protestantism, within a few hundred years, we have 23,000 different versions of Christianity all competing with each other and contradicting each other. Someone might say, “Well I know that my interpretation is correct because the spirit is leading me”. The Spirit is not going to lead one-man way one way and another man a different way.

    Some Protestant sects regard the Bible as the source from which every one may draw his own conclusions as to the truth. What has been held in all ages by the greatest teachers counts for little, if anything, in the way of authority. According to this view, every man becomes his own interpreter of the Bible, which so used may cease to be the word of God and may become the word of man. The necessary result of such private interpretation of the Scriptures is, that an endless variety of explanations may be given as to the meaning of God's word. This is one
    form of error concerning the ascertaining of the truth.

    The CULTS are much worse! The Mormon's, Jehovah Witnesses to other Cults go way beyond the Sola's to the point of just creating a new religion and much of their doctrine goes totally against Biblical Christianity and their followers swallow it up.

    We see this a lot in many Churches that claim they know the truth. One church claims this is the truth and another church will claim a different truth and they end up contradicting each other. Would God be a God of contradictions? The answer is no. God is not a God of confusion!

    You can look at the church and you will see it’s been led down a single path for 2,000 years and we haven’t changed the faith, we have not added to the faith and we have not subtracted from the faith, because it is all precious and we want to preserve all of it. And it’s only by the grace of God living in the Church that it is preserved. So, we give Him the glory.
    One word.... “Reformation”... huge change.
    A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards. Proverbs

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Paisios View Post
      The problem with the Sola’s is that they are not biblical. There is not a single verse of Scripture that says Scripture itself is the only authority. Not even one. But what does the Scriptures say about the Scriptures themselves? All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction and righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3-17). God incarnate and the Holy Spirit in the Church are God’s self-revelation. Scripture is the record of that revelation and the root from which tradition grows. So, the bible does say that the Scriptures are given by divine inspiration. It does say that they are profitable, they are useful for teaching and correction and without them we are not equipped and not furnished to do good works. But it does not say Scripture alone anywhere. So, I would say it fails its own test.

      We cannot recognize the Bible as the only authority and here is why. Because the bible has to be interpreted. If Scripture is the main source for revelation of Christian doctrine, reason is the main instrument for grasping, understanding, developing, and applying such doctrine. Scripture does not interpret itself. Its meaning is not self-evident. Reason is needed to understand and interpret anything, including scripture.

      The bible does not just stand alone. It is given within a context. And the context I would argue is the Church itself. The Church compiled the scriptures, the Church preserved the scriptures and the Church interprets the scriptures. The same Church that defined the Holy Trinity, the human and divine natures of Christ, is the same Church that compiled the scriptures that we enjoy every day.

      Tradition of the Church also has a kind of practical priority, because tradition summarizes the reasonable interpretation of Scripture by the many ages of the Church that have gone before us. Scripture cannot properly be separated from tradition and allowed to stand alone, not least because it was the inspired Church which decided which books should be included in Scripture and which not. Tradition, in other words, defined what is authentic Scripture and what is not. Without tradition both the content and the interpretation of Scripture will be thrown into radical doubt. Without tradition, broadly defined to include the worshiping life of the Church, Scripture has no context and is a mere, dead text.

      And the Church are really the Bishops in union with all of us in the body. We come to the scriptures together. Its just not the clergy, laity or isolated individuals. It is the Church as a whole that receives the scriptures and interprets the scriptures. The Church has a calling. The individual people (laity) has a calling to protect the faith. Not just the hierarchy, everyone has to content for the faith.

      The authority of the bible is undoubted. We believe in the authority of scripture. All of our traditions just amplify scripture. They manifest the meaning of scripture but they do not contradict scripture. So, all the pieces of tradition; the scriptures, the writings of holy church fathers, the iconography, the architecture to the ascetical works of monks and nuns that have been recorded. All of these things are part of a mosaic, all showing us the same picture. They don’t contradict each other. We don’t view the scriptures in isolation. Our interpretation of the scripture, agrees with the other aspects of holy tradition and the other aspects of holy tradition have to agrees with the scriptures. There cannot be a scenario of having to choose between the scripture versus the tradition.

      This is one of the main reasons why there are so many divisions going on in the Christian world. They interpret things differently and set up their own church. You see this in a lot of non-denominational churches . The problem is that you have every individual picking the bible apart and coming up with their own way of belief. They are personally interpreting the scriptures on their own. The Apostle Peter said no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. The holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So, the scriptures are not privately interpreted. The Church is guided by the Spirit and that is why if you look at the history of the Church, you can see an unbroken continuity from the Apostles, where we have not deviated from the faith once delivered to the Saints. But, if you compare that to Protestantism, within a few hundred years, we have 23,000 different versions of Christianity all competing with each other and contradicting each other. Someone might say, “Well I know that my interpretation is correct because the spirit is leading me”. The Spirit is not going to lead one-man way one way and another man a different way.

      Some Protestant sects regard the Bible as the source from which every one may draw his own conclusions as to the truth. What has been held in all ages by the greatest teachers counts for little, if anything, in the way of authority. According to this view, every man becomes his own interpreter of the Bible, which so used may cease to be the word of God and may become the word of man. The necessary result of such private interpretation of the Scriptures is, that an endless variety of explanations may be given as to the meaning of God's word. This is one
      form of error concerning the ascertaining of the truth.

      The CULTS are much worse! The Mormon's, Jehovah Witnesses to other Cults go way beyond the Sola's to the point of just creating a new religion and much of their doctrine goes totally against Biblical Christianity and their followers swallow it up.

      We see this a lot in many Churches that claim they know the truth. One church claims this is the truth and another church will claim a different truth and they end up contradicting each other. Would God be a God of contradictions? The answer is no. God is not a God of confusion!

      You can look at the church and you will see it’s been led down a single path for 2,000 years and we haven’t changed the faith, we have not added to the faith and we have not subtracted from the faith, because it is all precious and we want to preserve all of it. And it’s only by the grace of God living in the Church that it is preserved. So, we give Him the glory.
      you made a wonderful point here, and you explained the Catholic POV very well....as well as the LDS view (which is much the same as yours) until, of course, the bolded bit. Now I understand that to make your post applicable and usable in HERE, you HAVE to insert a slam against the CoJCoLDS, else it would be reported as being not on topic. It IS on topic, though, in that there aren't a whole lot of points in your post up until the bolded insult that we don't agree with. Well, we don't use "Tradition," of course (we don't have a lot of that, after all) but if you insert 'Holy Ghost" where you put "Tradition,' you pretty much have us.

      Well, and there's that 'unbroken continuity' thing, which is the real biggie between Catholics and us, all things considered. We rather firmly believe that there IS no 'apostolic succession,' in that the power of the priesthood was taken away at the death of the last apostle. Your view of scripture, however, marches a LOT closer to ours than that of any evangelical posting in here. Whether you see that as a good thing or not is up to you.


      I think, in order to twitch this thread a bit more to the 'on topic for the Mormon Forum,' however, perhaps you should eliminate the other groups you call 'cults,' and concentrate only on insulting Mormons?

      You insult them so that your discussion of scriptures can stay here, and I'll ignore the insults so that we can have a real discussion about scriptures and interpretation of same. Will that work?
      Providing a proper reference/citation for a quote says nothing. Refusing to provide a proper reference/citation for a quote says everything: it’s a credibility killer. Nothing says “I'm making this up” like refusing to provide citations.

      Comment


      • #4
        If Scripture is the main source for revelation of Christian doctrine, Reason is the main instrument for grasping, understanding, developing and applying such doctrine. Scripture does not interpret itself. It’s meaning is not self-evident. Reason is needed to understand and interpret anything including Scripture. But such reason must be illuminated by grace, which practically means that it must be attend closely to Scripture and tradition if it is to avoid gross error. This is why you see churches created just in the last 200 hundred years with much gross error.

        The most reliable teachings are those that are and have been taught by the Church dispersed through the world in a succession reaching back to the Apostles and their immediate successors.

        SCRIPTURE itself is not revelation. God incarnate and the Holy Spirit in the Church are God’s self-revelation. But Scripture is the record of that revelation and the root from which tradition grows. Nothing is essential for salvation which cannot be proven from, or at least be shown to be firmly grounded in Scripture.

        REASON also has a kind of priority. Reason gives us the ability to understand and use human language and abstract concepts; the ability to follow logical arguments, to make valid deductions, to detect fallacies in arguments, and to synthesize information and arguments. If Scripture is the main source for revelation of Christine doctrine, reason is the main instrument for grasping, understanding, developing, and applying such doctrine. Scripture does not interpret itself. Its meaning is not self-evident. Reason is needed to understand and interpret anything, including Scripture. But such reason must be illuminated by grace.

        TRADITION of the Church has a kind of practical priority, because tradition summarizes the reasonable interpretation of Scripture by the many ages of the Church that have gone before us. Scripture cannot properly be separated from tradition or allowed to stand alone, not least because it was the inspired Church which decided which books should be included in Scripture and which not. Tradition, in other words, defined what is authentic Scripture and what is not. Without tradition both the content and the interpretation of Scripture will be thrown into radical doubt. Without tradition, broadly defined to include the worshiping life of the Church, Scripture has no context and is a mere, dead text.

        Comment


        • #5
          dianaiad,

          You said I explained the Catholic point of view. I take you you mean Roman Catholic which I am not. I did explain the Catholic point of view, but when I say Catholic, I mean:

          Catholic means “universal”, as in, for example, the three Creeds, “I believe one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church….” Anglicans regard as Catholic those church groups and persons who believe and practice what was believed and practiced by the ancient, undivided Church of the Apostles from the time of Christ down to the Great Schismof 1054 A.D., including the three historic Creeds,the objective nature of the Sacraments, and the male ministry ordained in the Apostolic Succession, to administer those Sacraments. Anglicans reject Roman attempts to engross the word “Catholic” as a trade name for the Roman Church. Thus, for example, the official name for the people who are often referred to as “Eastern Orthodox” is actually “The Holy Catholic Orthodox Church”.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Paisios View Post
            dianaiad,

            You said I explained the Catholic point of view. I take you you mean Roman Catholic which I am not. I did explain the Catholic point of view, but when I say Catholic, I mean:

            Catholic means “universal”, as in, for example, the three Creeds, “I believe one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church….” Anglicans regard as Catholic those church groups and persons who believe and practice what was believed and practiced by the ancient, undivided Church of the Apostles from the time of Christ down to the Great Schismof 1054 A.D., including the three historic Creeds,the objective nature of the Sacraments, and the male ministry ordained in the Apostolic Succession, to administer those Sacraments. Anglicans reject Roman attempts to engross the word “Catholic” as a trade name for the Roman Church. Thus, for example, the official name for the people who are often referred to as “Eastern Orthodox” is actually “The Holy Catholic Orthodox Church”.
            But your view is not universal.
            “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -- George Carlin

            We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideals of Christianity, our movement is Christian. - Adolf Hitler

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Paisios View Post
              If Scripture is the main source for revelation of Christian doctrine, Reason is the main instrument for grasping, understanding, developing and applying such doctrine. Scripture does not interpret itself. It’s meaning is not self-evident. Reason is needed to understand and interpret anything including Scripture. But such reason must be illuminated by grace, which practically means that it must be attend closely to Scripture and tradition if it is to avoid gross error. This is why you see churches created just in the last 200 hundred years with much gross error.

              The most reliable teachings are those that are and have been taught by the Church dispersed through the world in a succession reaching back to the Apostles and their immediate successors.

              SCRIPTURE itself is not revelation. God incarnate and the Holy Spirit in the Church are God’s self-revelation. But Scripture is the record of that revelation and the root from which tradition grows. Nothing is essential for salvation which cannot be proven from, or at least be shown to be firmly grounded in Scripture.

              REASON also has a kind of priority. Reason gives us the ability to understand and use human language and abstract concepts; the ability to follow logical arguments, to make valid deductions, to detect fallacies in arguments, and to synthesize information and arguments. If Scripture is the main source for revelation of Christine doctrine, reason is the main instrument for grasping, understanding, developing, and applying such doctrine. Scripture does not interpret itself. Its meaning is not self-evident. Reason is needed to understand and interpret anything, including Scripture. But such reason must be illuminated by grace.

              TRADITION of the Church has a kind of practical priority, because tradition summarizes the reasonable interpretation of Scripture by the many ages of the Church that have gone before us. Scripture cannot properly be separated from tradition or allowed to stand alone, not least because it was the inspired Church which decided which books should be included in Scripture and which not. Tradition, in other words, defined what is authentic Scripture and what is not. Without tradition both the content and the interpretation of Scripture will be thrown into radical doubt. Without tradition, broadly defined to include the worshiping life of the Church, Scripture has no context and is a mere, dead text.
              OK, there isn't a whole lot here I can argue with. I especially like the very clear (and very well put...) differentiation between revelation itself, and the record of that revelation, scripture. it's a point that we, as LDS, make a LOT. In fact, that is how we define 'scripture,' that is, the written record of revelation from God. That written record is NOT the Revelation itself, and thank you for making that point.

              the problem I'm having here, and it's frustrating me badly, is that this post of yours, without some additions or comments, would be better in another forum....such as defending Tradition in an Orthodox forum. I would be very sad if it got moved over there, because I would love to continue discussing this issue in HERE, specifically as it pertains to Mormon doctrine and history.

              The problem for us, of course, is that we don't HAVE 1500 years of Tradition to work with. What WE have is what the early Christians had; immediate and strong revelation given to prophets who wrote it down, and when they wrote it down, of course, 'scripture happens.' The biblical scriptures were written by people who did have thousands of years of Tradition to work with, but they, like us, had to figure out how to BREAK that tradition.

              Protestants all work within Tradition, taking some, leaving some....shoot, this Christmas season is a huge example of how ALL of us do that. The vast majority of Christmas is about tradition, not scripture....the Bible certainly doesn't tell us that Jesus was born on December 25th, year 0 (or 3, or whatever). I mean, if we go by the Gregorian calendar, He was born in April or May (well, WE think He was born in April, actually). If we go by the calendars being used by the Jews at the time, He was probably born in September or October. the upshot is, nobody really knows, and who cares? We celebrate His birth, TRADITION has that celebration on December 25th, which marches along with the winter solstice, and we use all manner of traditions that we kidna...er...adopted....from other religions, mostly pagan ones.

              In fact, I don't think (except for the nativity itself, and it's 'Tradition,' not fact, that tells us how that one 'went down') there is a single Christmas tradition that is NOT originated from pagan roots. I don't think God cares. It probably tickles Him that we have turned pagan symbols into Christian ones.

              So WE use Tradition, too.....but not for interpreting scripture. THAT, we believe, is about prayer, the Holy Spirit, listening to prophets, and listening for the answers to prayer. You will notice, Paisos, that evangelicals seem (at least, those who post here seem...) to have a phobia about asking God about whether scripture is 'true' or not. They have a very circular view of the Bible. You, as a Catholic, and I, as a Latter-day saint, both agree that scripture MUST be confirmed, not by itself, but by an outside source. You use millenia of Tradition....we use the power of prayer and an expectation that our prayers on this subject will be answered.

              I hope that I have tweaked this enough so that it can stay here.
              Providing a proper reference/citation for a quote says nothing. Refusing to provide a proper reference/citation for a quote says everything: it’s a credibility killer. Nothing says “I'm making this up” like refusing to provide citations.

              Comment


              • #8
                Ralf,

                The word reformation signifies the shaping again, the putting something into shape which was out of shape. Reformation is not the destruction of an old thing, and the making of a new thing to take its place, but the improving of the old, so that it still lives on under restored conditions. Thus, reformation is much the same as restoration. It is most important to notice that the Reformation did not change the ancient Church of England for a new Church, neither did it change the old religion for a new religion. But what it did was this, — it freed the old Church from certain grave abuses, and purified the old religion from many harmful superstitions, which, in the middle ages, had attached themselves to the Church.

                It is only fair to admit that things went much too far in more than one direction as for example, the rejection of erroneous teaching as to the state of the dead, led to an imperfect belief in the value of prayers for the departed or where exaggerated teaching concerning the Eucharistic sacrifice resulted in an imperfect recognition of this great truth or again, where the usurpation of the pope was succeeded by the tyranny of the king. These were, in some degree, the natural results of a great reaction. And it is only right to say, that while the great essentials of Christian faith and practice were by God's good providence preserved, there were grievous losses in less important matters, which it is our duty to strive to repair as being part of our Catholic heritage.

                Six years later, in 1539, the Holy Bible in English was circulated, and a few years after the services of the Church were read in our own language. The chalice in the Holy Communion was restored to the laity, who were now allowed to seek absolution after confession as their consciences directed, and not of compulsion as hitherto. Much superstition concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Communion of Saints was removed. The appeal all through the Reformation time was to the Holy Scriptures, as interpreted by the teaching of the primitive Church and the fathers, and to the decisions of the General Councils of the Church. This appeal is ours to-day.

                The apostolic succession was continued without break, bishops being consecrated all through Reformation times by bishops of the old apostolic line. The sacraments, deriving their security and value from the apostolic succession, were continued. The appeal to antiquity, as the test of truth, was clearer than before. Thus, the English Church, by God's mercy, issued from the Reformation a true and living branch of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. The continuity of the English Church was the first principle of the English Reformation, and the apostolical succession, so carefully preserved through all changes, was the answer to the charge of schism, as the retention of the three Creeds and the recognition of the four Councils was the answer to the charge of heresy.

                “The Church of England hath not changed one thing of what she held before (the Reformation), any way pertaining either to the being or well-being of a Church. She still retains the same common rule of faith. She still teaches the necessity of a holy life, and presseth good works as much as before. She still observes all the fundamental ordinances and institutions of Christianity. She baptizeth, she feeds with the Holy Eucharist, she confirmeth. She retaineth the same apostolical government of bishops, priests, and deacons." — Bishop Bull's Vindication of the Church of England

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paisios View Post
                  The word reformation signifies the shaping again, the putting something into shape which was out of shape. Reformation is not the destruction of an old thing, and the making of a new thing to take its place, but the improving of the old, so that it still lives on under restored conditions.
                  Laminate that one.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ralf View Post

                    One word.... “Reformation”... huge change.
                    One word: "restoration," a huge, huge LIE.
                    Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post

                      Laminate that one.
                      Exactly where is there evidence, and we have very good histories of the Church, that proves that any of the obviously bizarre and nutty rituals and doctrine of Mormons has anything to do with the Apostolic Church? Go ahead and prove that dberrie. Even the quintessential "restoratonists," the Campbellites, who basically invented "restoratonism" considers Mormonism to be an heretical cult that never restored anything but INVENTED myths. Maybe you should call your strange cult INVENTEDISM. How about starting with this invented myth: One must go to the temple to get married in order to be exalted into a god. Must be somewhere in Christian history prior to the Liar, Smith's, birth, right?
                      Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Paisios View Post
                        The problem with the Sola’s is that they are not biblical. There is not a single verse of Scripture that says Scripture itself is the only authority. Not even one. But what does the Scriptures say about the Scriptures themselves? All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction and righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3-17). God incarnate and the Holy Spirit in the Church are God’s self-revelation. Scripture is the record of that revelation and the root from which tradition grows. So, the bible does say that the Scriptures are given by divine inspiration. It does say that they are profitable, they are useful for teaching and correction and without them we are not equipped and not furnished to do good works. But it does not say Scripture alone anywhere. So, I would say it fails its own test.

                        We cannot recognize the Bible as the only authority and here is why. Because the bible has to be interpreted. If Scripture is the main source for revelation of Christian doctrine, reason is the main instrument for grasping, understanding, developing, and applying such doctrine. Scripture does not interpret itself. Its meaning is not self-evident. Reason is needed to understand and interpret anything, including scripture.

                        The bible does not just stand alone. It is given within a context. And the context I would argue is the Church itself. The Church compiled the scriptures, the Church preserved the scriptures and the Church interprets the scriptures. The same Church that defined the Holy Trinity, the human and divine natures of Christ, is the same Church that compiled the scriptures that we enjoy every day.

                        Tradition of the Church also has a kind of practical priority, because tradition summarizes the reasonable interpretation of Scripture by the many ages of the Church that have gone before us. Scripture cannot properly be separated from tradition and allowed to stand alone, not least because it was the inspired Church which decided which books should be included in Scripture and which not. Tradition, in other words, defined what is authentic Scripture and what is not. Without tradition both the content and the interpretation of Scripture will be thrown into radical doubt. Without tradition, broadly defined to include the worshiping life of the Church, Scripture has no context and is a mere, dead text.

                        And the Church are really the Bishops in union with all of us in the body. We come to the scriptures together. Its just not the clergy, laity or isolated individuals. It is the Church as a whole that receives the scriptures and interprets the scriptures. The Church has a calling. The individual people (laity) has a calling to protect the faith. Not just the hierarchy, everyone has to content for the faith.

                        The authority of the bible is undoubted. We believe in the authority of scripture. All of our traditions just amplify scripture. They manifest the meaning of scripture but they do not contradict scripture. So, all the pieces of tradition; the scriptures, the writings of holy church fathers, the iconography, the architecture to the ascetical works of monks and nuns that have been recorded. All of these things are part of a mosaic, all showing us the same picture. They don’t contradict each other. We don’t view the scriptures in isolation. Our interpretation of the scripture, agrees with the other aspects of holy tradition and the other aspects of holy tradition have to agrees with the scriptures. There cannot be a scenario of having to choose between the scripture versus the tradition.

                        This is one of the main reasons why there are so many divisions going on in the Christian world. They interpret things differently and set up their own church. You see this in a lot of non-denominational churches . The problem is that you have every individual picking the bible apart and coming up with their own way of belief. They are personally interpreting the scriptures on their own. The Apostle Peter said no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. The holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So, the scriptures are not privately interpreted. The Church is guided by the Spirit and that is why if you look at the history of the Church, you can see an unbroken continuity from the Apostles, where we have not deviated from the faith once delivered to the Saints. But, if you compare that to Protestantism, within a few hundred years, we have 23,000 different versions of Christianity all competing with each other and contradicting each other. Someone might say, “Well I know that my interpretation is correct because the spirit is leading me”. The Spirit is not going to lead one-man way one way and another man a different way.

                        Some Protestant sects regard the Bible as the source from which every one may draw his own conclusions as to the truth. What has been held in all ages by the greatest teachers counts for little, if anything, in the way of authority. According to this view, every man becomes his own interpreter of the Bible, which so used may cease to be the word of God and may become the word of man. The necessary result of such private interpretation of the Scriptures is, that an endless variety of explanations may be given as to the meaning of God's word. This is one
                        form of error concerning the ascertaining of the truth.

                        The CULTS are much worse! The Mormon's, Jehovah Witnesses to other Cults go way beyond the Sola's to the point of just creating a new religion and much of their doctrine goes totally against Biblical Christianity and their followers swallow it up.

                        We see this a lot in many Churches that claim they know the truth. One church claims this is the truth and another church will claim a different truth and they end up contradicting each other. Would God be a God of contradictions? The answer is no. God is not a God of confusion!

                        You can look at the church and you will see it’s been led down a single path for 2,000 years and we haven’t changed the faith, we have not added to the faith and we have not subtracted from the faith, because it is all precious and we want to preserve all of it. And it’s only by the grace of God living in the Church that it is preserved. So, we give Him the glory.
                        I agree with a lot in this thread. In many cases, Protestantism threw out the baby with the bath water in rejecting Roman errors. I also agree with the Anglican Articles which state that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation. If a "tradition" in the Church is contrary to the Bible (for instance, a celibate priesthood which is a Gnostic error and one that cannot be proven by Scripture) it is to be rejected. Or take the Romanish doctrine of Purgatory, which contradicts Paul's assertion that the Christian immediately goes to be with Jesus at death, and doesn't have to "pay" some temporal debt for sin. The Bible clearly says that Christ's Atoning death is the One sufficient sacrifice for sin. Or let's take the Roman practice of Eucharistic vigils - that can clearly lapse into idolatry, and the Scriptures nowhere recommend such a practice.....again, this is in the Anglican articles. So, basically, the Christian must "test" all things by Word and Spirit and "keep that which is good."

                        Now many traditions that have grown up in the sacramental Christian churches are "good." I believe that pious acts (genuflection, kneeling at prayer, blessing oneself, etc.) are to be recognized as beneficial. As you know, in the Anglican Church the mood is one of reverence, and focusing on the altar, where we remember the One Sacrifice of the Lord. Many Protestants have abandoned these traditions as being unbiblical, to their loss. Noises (kids yamming, adults chatting) and pre-service activities, also, sort of wreck any ability to concentrate on the sacrificial act we are about to see unfold. Generally, I view many Evangelical services as Bible studies. A little more concentration on the Didache, which outlines the worship of the ancient church, might be in order for our Protestant brethren. Also, relegating the Lord's Supper to once a month or maybe only four times a year or less is certainly flying in the face of the practice of the early Church (see Didache). However, we must never lose sight of this: salvation isn't by tradition or Bible knowledge, or even by Eucharistic observance - it is about faith in the one, true Jesus as proclaimed by Word and Spirit. This is how we know a cult - they bring another "jesus."

                        The cults have not only abandoned pious traditions, they have totally abandoned the Bible as well, and set themselves up in its place. The Watchtower is Christ to its followers; Joseph Smith is Christ to Mormons. The Mormon cult has abandoned both Word and Spirit in favor of extra-biblical drivel that any thinking person immediately recognizes as childish fabrications. They have substituted s man for Jesus, one they call a prophet, and set him up as the fount of authority - when Heb. 1 clearly tells us that the words of "prophets" has been replaced by God's Son's teachings. Mormons have absolutely NO understanding of the supernatural charismata, and it's not even worthwhile to deal with them sometimes since they have closed their minds and hearts to Word, Spirit and Tradition. Not to mention "reason," one of the legs on the three-legged stool of Anglicanism. They think they have replaced Jesus' Church with their own invention and there is no end to the folly we see in this cult as it squirms around trying to cover up its history and the disastrous immoral life of its founder.

                        I don't know, however, whether it's of any value to discuss these things on a Mormon forum, since these cultists will so quickly gather stones of criticism to use as weapons as they wage war, WITH SATAN BY THEIR SIDE, with the Church Jesus bought with His own Blood. Why cast pearls before those who will trample them down as do the swine Jesus spoke of? You can see that one Mormon right away popped up to condemn the Reformation, which I doubt Mormons even understand. Let's face it, they are not exactly adept students of history - one here confuses Incarnation with Reincarnation, hardly a sign of theological astuteness.


                        The Mormon mind is closed to truth unless the Spirit of God delivers him or her from the demonic bondage of Smith's heresies - otherwise, they are content to linger in the smelly sewer of Arianism, false prophets, Polythesim, Greed, and revisionist history which define the LDS cult today. Pulling Mormons out of the fire that will soon destroy them is really a fruitless effort in most cases because they have sealed their fate by relying on an obvious charlatan and witch, Joseph Smith. God sees their choice, and won't interfere with their "agency." Let's focus on keeping people out of the grip of Mormon theological slime that is aimed at destroying the Body of Christ. As far as I can see, it appears to be working.
                        Last edited by Catherine Aurelia; 11-27-18, 09:38 AM.
                        Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
                          Exactly where is there evidence, and we have very good histories of the Church, that proves that any of the obviously bizarre and nutty rituals and doctrine of Mormons has anything to do with the Apostolic Church?
                          Here:

                          Acts 2:38-42--- King James Version (KJV)
                          38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
                          39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
                          40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
                          41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
                          42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post

                            Exactly where is there evidence, and we have very good histories of the Church, that proves that any of the obviously bizarre and nutty rituals and doctrine of Mormons has anything to do with the Apostolic Church? Go ahead and prove that dberrie. Even the quintessential "restoratonists," the Campbellites, who basically invented "restoratonism" considers Mormonism to be an heretical cult that never restored anything but INVENTED myths. Maybe you should call your strange cult INVENTEDISM. How about starting with this invented myth: One must go to the temple to get married in order to be exalted into a god. Must be somewhere in Christian history prior to the Liar, Smith's, birth, right?
                            Invented myth? It wouldn’t need restoring if it hadn’t been lost.

                            Of course the restored teachings that make Mormonism unique look foreign to some othe Christians.

                            If these teachings were clear in the Bible they wouldn’t need restoring.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CTR-Lloyd View Post

                              Invented myth? It wouldn’t need restoring if it hadn’t been lost.

                              Of course the restored teachings that make Mormonism unique look foreign to some othe Christians.

                              If these teachings were clear in the Bible they wouldn’t need restoring.
                              Except nothing needed restoring. Jesus said His church would never die and that He would be with us to the end of the age. If the church fell into complete apostasy after the first century, then that means either Jesus lied and the gates of hades/hell DID prevail against His church and He was NOT with us--the church--to the end of the age.

                              But then, according to Mormon beliefs, the Apostle John never died. If so, why then did he not prevent the church from dying out? He was an apostolic authority. What was he doing for 1800 years--sipping pina coladas on a tropical island somewhere? While supposedly allowing the early church to die?

                              "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                              "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                              "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                              "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
                              "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X