Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

You haven’t answered my question in post 43, in response to your post 42. Below is your comment:

Post 42 YOU WRITE: “Given that man’s traditions– things like sola scriptura– have caused a ton of problems over the centuries, I try very much to heed Paul’s caution to the Colossians that they not be spoiled after “the tradition of men, etc.”

Again I ask:

What problems have sola scriptura caused, since they are the inerrant inspired Word of God?

Report comment to moderator

My sense is that we could spend hours here quibbling about grammar, punctuation, and style and get nowhere. More importantly, we could probably fire Scripture passages at each other until Kingdom come and accomplish nothing but the undeniable proof that each of us is our own little mini-Pope if we hold to interpreting Scripture solely as we each see fit. Me, I prefer to stand with St. Vincent of Lerins in believing only “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” Rather than relying on my own feeble intellect and world-influenced heart to direct my practices and beliefs, I’m happy to look to the godly traditions of the Apostles handed down through generations of holy bishops by the laying on of hands, vouchsafed by the Holy Spirit in His Church, and not in conflict one whit with Holy Writ. Lex orandi; lex credendi. If that means that baptized infants are served the “Medicine of Immortality,” as St. Ignatius of Antioch terms the Holy Things, all the better.

Reg- For what it’s worth, if you’re interested, here’s a link to a decent article discussing the Orthodox view of children in the Church: http://www.antiochian.org/node/16904. I loved the quote (from a Presbyterian, no less): “Opposition to communion of children is pagan and seeks to reverse the revolutionary table fellowship established by the Church. It is an attempt to return to Egypt.”

Cheers, all. Enjoy your weekend.

– Jonny

Report comment to moderator

YOU WRITE: “I was simply summarizing what I believed you to have set forth and using quotes to separate two important concepts.”

Summarizing is NOT using quote marks – there also is no reason to summarise what I said, it was clear and concise.

YOU WRITE: “Given that man’s traditions– things like sola scriptura– have caused a ton of problems over the centuries, I try very much to heed Paul’s caution to the Colossians that they not be spoiled after “the tradition of men, etc.”

What problems have sola scriptura caused, since they are the inerrant inspired Word of God?

Report comment to moderator

My apologies if you believed I was quoting you. I expected that it would be exceedingly apparent to all that I was simply summarizing what I believed you to have set forth and using quotes to separate two important concepts. As for intent, as I’ve indicated in past postings, I’m simply concerned with truth.

I have no beef with Paul in Romans where he indicates that those who confess Christ with their mouths and believe “in their hearts” in the Resurrection shall be saved. A proof text it ain’t for refusing Holy Communion to the baptized– infant or otherwise.

Nor do I have any problem with your quotes from Timothy. But, again, a proof text it ain’t for sola scriptura. I’m cheering Paul’s encouragement to Timothy that he hold fast to the Old Testament scriptures (the only “holy scriptures” that existed at that time) as able to make him wise unto salvation and that such scriptures were inspired by God, etc. I’m also cheering Paul’s encouragement that Timothy continue in the things that he learned and was assured of directly from the Apostles– whatever those things were. Given that man’s traditions– things like sola scriptura– have caused a ton of problems over the centuries, I try very much to heed Paul’s caution to the Colossians that they not be spoiled after “the tradition of men, etc.”

Hope this helps!

– Jonny

Report comment to moderator

You write: “I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. If you’re a sola scriptura fan, you’ll note that the rule you articulate re. a person needing to have “full understanding” and to “accept Jesus Christ as their Savior” cannot be found in the Bible.”

First of all there are a number of things which cannot be found in the Bible such as,   Trinity, and the word Bible, to name just two.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9

       You have taken out of context what I posted in #37. This is what I posted:

       ”Until a child fully understands what it means to be Born Again, and accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior, they should not be allowed to have the LORD’s Supper.”

I never once used the word “full” – this YOU inserted instead of using what I wrote which was “fully” –

I never once used the word “understanding” – this YOU inserted as my wording, when in fact IT WAS NOT, I used the word “understands” –

I never once used the word “accept” however you chose to insert this word in my quote – what I used was “accepted” –

Jonny, when you quote someone, using quote (”) marks, make sure you use their EXACT quote – You have missquoted me, making it up as you go along, this is not honest, which makes me question your intent-

Sola Scriptura is the Bibles position, and one that hold dear -

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 2
 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Report comment to moderator

Me, too!

Report comment to moderator

I believe the Bible to be the inerrant inspired Word of God -

Report comment to moderator

I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. If you’re a sola scriptura fan, you’ll note that the rule you articulate re. a person needing to have “full understanding” and to “accept Jesus Christ as their Savior” cannot be found in the Bible. This emphasis on “knowing God” through the mind is an unfortunate outgrowth of the Western scholastic heritage direct from Augustine, Aquinas, Aristotle, and the rest. I might even go so far as to say that it is nearly Gnostic. In the same way that we “know” people, we don’t “know” God through our mind but through our experience of Him. I’m not downplaying the role of the mind in knowing “about” Him, at all, but just saying that God is personal– not an object of mental contemplation or speculation.

All this said, the early Church would just as vehemently disagree as evidenced by the tradition of communining infants that was firmly in place. Note the following:

Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) writes:
“As soon as we are regenerated [through the laver of baptism], we are honoured by receiving the good news of the hope of rest. . . receiving through what is material the pledge of the sacred food.”
When the Church baptizes its infants, it immediately annoints them with chrism and gives them the Holy Mysteries. The separation of these “sacraments” into separate events in many sects is a relatively modern innovation.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (~250) testified, in his “On the Lapsed,” that infant communion was not an uncommon practice in the early Church:

“Some parents who by chance were escaping, being little careful on account of their terror, left a little daughter under the care of a wet-nurse. The nurse gave up the forsaken child to the magistrates. They gave it, in the presence of an idol whither the people flocked (because it was not yet able to eat flesh on account of its years), bread mingled with wine, which however itself was the remainder of what had been used in the immolation of those that had perished. Subsequently the mother recovered her child. But the girl was no more able to speak, or to indicate the crime that had been committed, than she had before been able to understand or to prevent it. Therefore it happened unawares in their ignorance, that when we were sacrificing, the mother brought it in with her. Moreover, the girl mingled with the saints, became impatient of our prayer and supplications, and was at one moment shaken with weeping, and at another tossed about like a wave of the sea by the violent excitement of her mind; as if by the compulsion of a torturer the soul of that still tender child confessed a consciousness of the fact with such signs as it could. When, however, the solemnities were finished, and the deacon began to offer the cup to those present, and when, as the rest received it, its turn approached, the little child, by the instinct of the divine majesty, turned away its face, compressed its mouth with resisting lips, and refused the cup. Still the deacon persisted, and, although against her efforts, forced on her some of the sacrament of the cup. Then there followed a sobbing and vomiting. In a profane body and mouth the Eucharist could not remain; the draught sanctified in the blood of the Lord burst forth from the polluted stomach. So great is the Lord’s power, so great is His majesty. The secrets of darkness were disclosed under His light, and not even hidden crimes deceived God’s priest.”

Saint Augustine (late 4th century), in his Vol. 5 of his Works (Sermon 174), is even more specific:

“They are infants, but they receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in order to have life in themselves.”

HT to the Reformed site http://www.paedocommunion.com/articles/fathers_quotations.php for the plethora of quotes on the topic.

Report comment to moderator