Sola Scriptura - heresy against God or man's institution?

[firedragon]

But the Twelve passed their Apostolic authority to others, and that authority is as valid as their own. It continues to the present day.

Which church? The RC church you mean?

Fine if you believe this its your belief. Basically what you are saying is "it was a heresy against the institution", not against God.

 

[sojourner]

the topic is about Sola Scriptura. If you think it was not called a heresy its your prerogative.

I didn't say it wasn't heretical. In fact, I implied just that very thing. Sola scriptura is heretical because it attempts to dismiss extra-textual teachings, which it has never been the Church's habit to do -- until the Reformation.

Also you have not understood how it came about and why it was such an issue during the Trent times. You are guessing based on your assumptions. Read up on it.

I never mentioned "how it came about," or "why it was such an issue during the Council of Trent." I understand the history; I took 6 graduate hours of ancient church history in seminary.

 

[sojourner]

Which church? The RC church you mean?

I mean the Church. Every expression that is within the Apostolic Succession. RCC, yes, but also the Eastern churches, the Anglican Communion, the ELCA, and others. This isn't about denomination; it's about Apostolic authority, which cuts across denominational lines.

Fine if you believe this its your belief. Basically what you are saying is "it was a heresy against the institution", not against God.

The "institution" is the Body of Christ. Jesus is God.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't say it wasn't heretical. In fact, I implied just that very thing. Sola scriptura is heretical because it attempts to dismiss extra-textual teachings, which it has never been the Church's habit to do -- until the Reformation.


I never mentioned "how it came about," or "why it was such an issue during the Council of Trent." I understand the history; I took 6 graduate hours of ancient church history in seminary.

Alright mate. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

I mean the Church. Every expression that is within the Apostolic Succession. RCC, yes, but also the Eastern churches, the Anglican Communion, the ELCA, and others. This isn't about denomination; it's about Apostolic authority, which cuts across denominational lines.


The "institution" is the Body of Christ. Jesus is God.

Okay mate. Cheers.

 

[YoursTrue]

I mean the Church. Every expression that is within the Apostolic Succession. RCC, yes, but also the Eastern churches, the Anglican Communion, the ELCA, and others. This isn't about denomination; it's about Apostolic authority, which cuts across denominational lines.


The "institution" is the Body of Christ. Jesus is God.

As I was reading the Athanasian Creed, would you say that is the truth? Meaning do you say that the "apostolic succession" is truth as far as God is concerned also according to the Athanasian Creed? (Or is it who knows?)

 

[sojourner]

As I was reading the Athanasian Creed, would you say that is the truth? Meaning do you say that the "apostolic succession" is truth as far as God is concerned also according to the Athanasian Creed? (Or is it who knows?)

My professional opinion is that the Athanasian Creed goes a little too far in specifics for the current context. Remember: that Creed was formulated specifically to combat the Arians. AFAIC, Creeds should be broad in language. The Apostles' Creed, also known as the baptismal Creed, is such a Creed. The Nicene is fine, but it also sparked a debate between Eastern and Western judicatories with the inclusion of the Filioque Clause. But, the Athanasian Creed is essentially truth. And yes, the Apostolic Succession is also truth. But remember: we're talking theology, not ontology here.

 

[YoursTrue]

My professional opinion is that the Athanasian Creed goes a little too far in specifics for the current context. Remember: that Creed was formulated specifically to combat the Arians. AFAIC, Creeds should be broad in language. The Apostles' Creed, also known as the baptismal Creed, is such a Creed. The Nicene is fine, but it also sparked a debate between Eastern and Western judicatories with the inclusion of the Filioque Clause. But, the Athanasian Creed is essentially truth. And yes, the Apostolic Succession is also truth. But remember: we're talking theology, not ontology here.

My professional opinion is that the Athanasian Creed goes a little too far in specifics for the current context. Remember: that Creed was formulated specifically to combat the Arians. AFAIC, Creeds should be broad in language. The Apostles' Creed, also known as the baptismal Creed, is such a Creed. The Nicene is fine, but it also sparked a debate between Eastern and Western judicatories with the inclusion of the Filioque Clause. But, the Athanasian Creed is essentially truth. And yes, the Apostolic Succession is also truth. But remember: we're talking theology, not ontology here.

Your professional opinion? (Per your first sentence above.)

 

[YoursTrue]

My professional opinion is that the Athanasian Creed goes a little too far in specifics for the current context. Remember: that Creed was formulated specifically to combat the Arians. AFAIC, Creeds should be broad in language. The Apostles' Creed, also known as the baptismal Creed, is such a Creed. The Nicene is fine, but it also sparked a debate between Eastern and Western judicatories with the inclusion of the Filioque Clause. But, the Athanasian Creed is essentially truth. And yes, the Apostolic Succession is also truth. But remember: we're talking theology, not ontology here.

Would you like to be a little more specific about the "specifics" you are talking about and then speaking of the current context? (Whatever that means...) So what is the current context? of?? what? Let me venture a guess here -- the current context of the trinity doctrine? or statement of faith? As I understand it, the Athanasian Creed is uttered upon occasion, not often now, but apparently the decree of condemnation inherent therein is a bit jarring, shall we say, for some, and I suppose the apostolic succession as it is called, figured out something better?

 

[YoursTrue]

My professional opinion is that the Athanasian Creed goes a little too far in specifics for the current context. ....Athanasian Creed is essentially truth. And yes, the Apostolic Succession is also truth. But remember: we're talking theology, not ontology here.

What part of the Athanasian Creed is essentially truth, as you said, and what part may not be? In your opinion, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

My professional opinion is that the Athanasian Creed goes a little too far in specifics for the current context. Remember: that Creed was formulated specifically to combat the Arians. AFAIC, Creeds should be broad in language. The Apostles' Creed, also known as the baptismal Creed, is such a Creed. The Nicene is fine, but it also sparked a debate between Eastern and Western judicatories with the inclusion of the Filioque Clause. But, the Athanasian Creed is essentially truth. And yes, the Apostolic Succession is also truth. But remember: we're talking theology, not ontology here.

Another question. When you say it was formulated to combat the Arians, and I'm not denying that, would you also say regardless of the condemnation laid out in the Creed itself, (1) it is truth absolute about God, and (2) the RCC, possibly the other churches you speak of that you believe are the body of Christ, no longer believe in eternal damnation, which was often spoken of as hellfire? So there are two questions there. One is whether the creeds as you mention above are truth absolu, or if somehow the truth of God could possibly differ from that? And if not, has the truth changed in the church you speak of about that eternal damnation idea?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Certainly the Scriptures Alone is a wrong teaching in the Catholic way of looking at things but it is not a heresy to the extent that those who hold to it are excluded from being Christian.

Maybe not now, but it was at one time, when the RCC had more influence & control!

It was considered a serious heresy mate.... People were killed.

IMO, when a religious organization has taken part in, or at least supported, the killing of others, their disobedience (John 13:34-35 & Matthew 5:44) has alienated them from Christ, and God. Titus 1:16; 1 John 3:10-15

 

[sojourner]

Would you like to be a little more specific about the "specifics" you are talking about and then speaking of the current context? (Whatever that means...) So what is the current context? of?? what? Let me venture a guess here -- the current context of the trinity doctrine? or statement of faith? As I understand it, the Athanasian Creed is uttered upon occasion, not often now, but apparently the decree of condemnation inherent therein is a bit jarring, shall we say, for some, and I suppose the apostolic succession as it is called, figured out something better?

For me, the explicit detail of the Faith-statements nails the doctrine down a little too finely. It attempts to define, rather than explore this facet of God.

In the context of its formulation, these tight definitions were necessary in order to differentiate orthodoxy from heresy. The world was not so large then. The Church was attempting to find some homogeneity that would bind the communities together while the Church was in its formative stages. Today, the Church can be more broadly-defined. There are any number of theological ecosystems that can be deemed “orthodox.” I suggest that a broader doctrine than the Athanasian is needed in order to encompass a multifaceted Faith, rather than define one sect over against another.

 

[sojourner]

What part of the Athanasian Creed is essentially truth, as you said, and what part may not be? In your opinion, of course.

I think it’s all true. I just think our context is different from that of Athanasius.

 

[sojourner]

Another question. When you say it was formulated to combat the Arians, and I'm not denying that, would you also say regardless of the condemnation laid out in the Creed itself, (1) it is truth absolute about God, and (2) the RCC, possibly the other churches you speak of that you believe are the body of Christ, no longer believe in eternal damnation, which was often spoken of as hellfire? So there are two questions there. One is whether the creeds as you mention above are truth absolu, or if somehow the truth of God could possibly differ from that? And if not, has the truth changed in the church you speak of about that eternal damnation idea?

I don’t think truth is absolute in any case.
Many valid expressions of the Faith no longer stress damnation as it is generally understood.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think it’s all true. I just think our context is different from that of Athanasius.

OK, since you say it's all true, are you saying that eternal damnation will come to those who don't consider (as in believe) that God is a trinity? (Sorry, I read your statement before I read your following statement.). So which is it? Is eternal damnation in the books for those who don't believe in or accept the trinity doctrine?

 

[YoursTrue]

I don’t think truth is absolute in any case.
Many valid expressions of the Faith no longer stress damnation as it is generally understood.

Um...how is damnation generally understood, would you say, and is it linked (as the Athanasian creed claims) to acceptance of the trinity doctrine?

 

[sojourner]

OK, since you say it's all true, are you saying that eternal damnation will come to those who don't consider (as in believe) that God is a trinity? (Sorry, I read your statement before I read your following statement.). So which is it? Is eternal damnation in the books for those who don't believe in or accept the trinity doctrine?

Depends on how the Creed is interpreted. Remember: Even hard-and-fast laws need interpretation. That's why the same act, under the same circumstances may either be ruled "murder" or "wrongful death." This isn't ontology, it's theology.

 

[sojourner]

Um...how is damnation generally understood, would you say, and is it linked (as the Athanasian creed claims) to acceptance of the trinity doctrine?

I think "damnation" is generally understood as God's condemnation of our failure to draw near to God. I think that condemnation is generally understood to be eternal.

Athanasius was pushing hard to make a point with what he believed was true and what was not. He was drawing some pretty heavy lines in the sand, partly, I believe, in order to make his statements authoritative. "Acceptance of the Trinity" (as forumulated) was seen, at that time, as the core doctrine of the Church. Today, most authorities tend to point out, rather than dictate, doctrine. Even the RCC has relaxed its stance somewhat. While the doctrine (or some form of it) remains a core doctrine for the Apostolic churches, the need to "enforce" the doctrine has relaxed.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think "damnation" is generally understood as God's condemnation of our failure to draw near to God. I think that condemnation is generally understood to be eternal.

Athanasius was pushing hard to make a point with what he believed was true and what was not. He was drawing some pretty heavy lines in the sand, partly, I believe, in order to make his statements authoritative. "Acceptance of the Trinity" (as forumulated) was seen, at that time, as the core doctrine of the Church. Today, most authorities tend to point out, rather than dictate, doctrine. Even the RCC has relaxed its stance somewhat. While the doctrine (or some form of it) remains a core doctrine for the Apostolic churches, the need to "enforce" the doctrine has relaxed.

As I understand it, many religions have "relaxed their stance" on damnation (usually thought of to be eternal) as eternal suffering in fire or whatever. But to say it goes along with belief or confession of the trinity doctrine is fanciful.