Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article ,
lsenders{at}hotmail.com

> > but there is so much more to it.  It boggles me how
> >complex it is.
>
> If it 'boggles' you, you should have knon better than to speak about
things you
> know nothing about. But you persist. SO I woudl sya you are not
'boggled'
> enough.
>
I would expect such a logical conclusion from you.  You reject the sole
authority of the scriptures which means nothing short of placing the
authority of rational men over them.  God boggles the mind therefore we
cannot say anything positive about Him, only what He is not.  Is this
not your position?

May I ask what do you know so exhaustively that it no longer boggles
your superior mental faculties?
>
> No, it does no such thing. On the contrary: it is the doctrine of
sola scriptura
> that confuses the wisdom fo God with the wisdom of the world, the
wisdom that
> sets up the reader's own mind against the mind of the Church, outside
of which
> no one can be saved.
>
You illustrate why catholicism must declare the declarative function of
the church to be magisterialis instead of the Biblical teaching that it
is ministerialis.  This is the natural product of those who reject
Scripture as having sole authority over the Church.  It denies not only
the authority of Scripture, but the sufficiency and perspicuity as
well.  Like the RCC, the EOC as well teaches not only the addition of
"apostolic traditions" but adds to it that the church alone
authoritatively and irreformably interprets both of these source of
divine revelation.  The natural inference is that without the
infallible interpretation of the ecclesiastical powers, the faithful
would surely misunderstand the meaning of the Scriptures, disallowing
both the ministry of the HS and the revelatory ability of "The
Prophet."  Thus, by such a system, the authority of God as it comes to
man is never absolute.  It is correlative to the idea of human
autonomy.

So to reject the sole authority of scripture and its perspicuity, it
necessarily follows that you reject its sufficiency.  This bares the
natural child of declarative as added to constitutive tradition.
Supernatural revelation comes to the church through both the sacred
oracles and through "tradition."  The Scriptures, so you teach, without
this apostolic tradition are neither complete or finished.  Added is
the facet that the HS does not testify to the OT or the NT Scriptures a
being alone the Word of God.

And like your Romanist cousins, you maintain that these "traditions"
are infallible, yet what is contained in this "tradition" is ultimately
determined by the church.  In the Roman church it is the pope who
declares principium formale.  In yours, it is the ecclesiastical
hierarchy of bishops.  Both of these setup an an authorized priesthood
and religious order not undifferent from the religious priesthood of
Israel of Jesus' day and the "traditions of men", both of which Christ
roundly condemns.

The question is, "Why reject the sufficiency of the Scriptures?"  It's
pretty clear to those who will but see it.  The rejection of the
Scriptures in each instance id due to the desire to make Christianity
acceptable to the autonomous man.  The RCC did so to gain those who
held to the pagan and mystery religions.  The RCC has been synthetic in
its theology since its inception.  The great lie is that the attributes
of the god (Rom 1:23) of the autonomous man are projections of his own
ideals.  He speaks as if such a god exists.  He speaks as if such a god
were revealing himself and giving commandments to man.  In reality, no
such god exists.

And since the catholic system seeks, on the one hand, to be true to
historical Christianity and yet on the other hand, to pleas the
autonomous man via its traditions and its rationalistic and elitist
interpretative authoritarian, it's "system" is a combination of two
mutually opposed systems and even of two mutually opposed ideas of
system.  When the catholic theologian speak of his idea of analogy it
is this confusion of two mutually exclusive ideas of system that he is
really presenting.  On the contrary, the Reformed idea of analogy does
not seek to please the autonomous man.  It would call the  natural man
to repentance.  It would have him accept the Christian instead of the
non-Christian idea of system, of believing and of knowledge.  It would
have him submitted himself and his thoughts to the obedience of God in
Christ, His Expressive.

Sola scriptura sets foolish man and his propensity to remain
autonomously authoritative into submission to the one absolute and rule
of faith left to him -the inspired and living Word of God.  During His
walk on earth, Christ's authority was based upon the Scriptures and the
Scriptures alone.  In His wilderness temptations, it was the Scriptures
which dispelled Satan's advance.  In His debates with the religious
leaders of His day, it was the constant quotation of Scripture which
had them dropping their stones and slinking back into the crowd.

Beside this fact there is also the relativistic matter of the nature of
"tradition."  I have repeatedly asked for book or a reference work from
which I too might know the detail of such an apostolic tradition.  But
there is none and there never will be one because it is just that
-relativistic.  It must be so inorder that autonomous man may change
the rules of the game as it is played so that he always wins the game.


Rom. 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/21/05 9:49:46 PM ---