Los Padres de la Iglesia y la Sola Scriptura

[excelsior1015]

Es de notar q muchos protestantes de cualkier denominacion, al verse acosados por la muestra de q la Biblia no demuestra completamente la falsa doctrina humana de la Sola Scriptura, que se empeñan en buscar en los documentos de los Padres de la Iglesia alguna señal de que ellos abogaban por esa falsa doctrina de la S.S.

Lo q me da a pensar de q ellos solo buscan justificarse de cualkier manera, claro esta, siempre y cuando esa manera según ellos tenga cierta base (pues es lo q noto en sus ''refutaciones'' y ''pruebas) , lo cual seria como una mentira a medias. Por ejemplo, citan siempre parrafos aislados, y en la Biblia versiculos aislados.

De esta manera no se dan cuenta de como una simple logica tumba cualkier ''analisis'' que ellos supuestamente hace.

Un ejemplo de esto es el q usan con los Padres de la Iglesia, digamos q si ellos estaban de acuerdo con la Sola Scriptura. Pues bien, la S.S. implica que la Tradición Apostolica no debe ser aceptada, entre otras implicaciones que se dan. Dicha Tradición Apostolica nos lleva q aceptar que el Papa es el sucesor de Pedro, y de ahi nos lleva a los sacerdotes. Lo que los protestantes omiten es q los Pdres de la Iglesia eran sacerdotes y obispos, como San Agustin, incluso San Clemente fue el 4to Papa. Esto nos lleva a pensar, que si los Padres de la Iglesia estaban de cierta manera de acuerdo con la doctrina de la Sola Scriptura, ellos mismos se estban hechando la soga al cuello debido a que la misma s.s. implicaba el rechazar que ellos habian recivido por parte de los apostoles y de la Tradición Apostolica el ser consagrados como sacerdotes y obispos.

Esto es una prueba de que ni los mismos protestantes se esmeran en investigar mas y reliazar una meditacion en base a lo que promulgan, como decir q los Padres de la Iglesia mencionaban la s.s. lo cual es una contradicción total.
_________________
“Sólo se puede encontrar la verdad con la lógica si antes se ha hallado la verdad sin ella.” - G.K. Chesterton.
“La apologética es la defensa razonada de la fe y su herramienta es el argumento.” - Karl Keating.

[salvador melara]

La cuestión es que en el protestantismo se enseña la sola escritura como una manera de rebelarse en contra de la Iglesia. Se les hace creer que la Biblia es “la regla infalible de fe y conducta”, y que si algo no lo dice la Biblia debe rechazarse tajantemente. Pero lo triste es que tratan de ignorar el hecho que la misma Biblia nace de la tradición. Que la Biblia no puede interpretarse por sí misma como dicen, porque para poder entender el mensaje de la Biblia hay que conocer otros aspectos como cultura bíblica, lingüística, historia, etc.

Otro aspecto muy importante es que rechazan la autoridad de la Iglesia Católica llegando incluso a tildarla de apóstata, diabólica, pagana, etc. pero usan la misma Biblia que la Iglesia Católica formó. Porque fue la Iglesia en uno de sus concilios que estableció los libros que son inspirados por Dios formándose así el canon del Nuevo Testamento. Lo que les pregunto (a ver si alguien tiene el valor de responder) es: si la Iglesia Católica es una institución corrupta, diabólica y pagana, ¿por qué usa la biblia cuyo canon fue establecido por la misma Iglesia Católica? ¿Por qué mejor no hacen su propia biblia con libros que apoyen su doctrina de sola escritura? Porque me parece muy mal que usen la misma biblia formada por una institución que desprecian y odian… sería más honesto descartar esa biblia…. Lo que creo que les pasa es que les gusta la ------ pero les cae mal la vaca de donde sale la ------.
_________________
www.caminohaciaroma.com
http://caminohaciaroma.com/blog/
http://salvadormelara.hi5.com
No todo el que me dice: Señor, Señor, entrará en el reino de los cielos

[José Miguel Arráiz]

Ahora que este tema vuelve a salir, aprovecho la oportunidad de pedir a quien quiera colaborar, un poco de ayuda para traducir estos textos patrístico (que necesito para mejorar un estudio que tengo publicado).

Si alguien se anima, gracias de antemano (puede ser con aunque sea una de las citas, y grano a grano se llena el buche)


. . The dogmas taught by remarkable sects will be adduced; and to these will be opposed all that ought to be premised in accordance with the profoundest contemplation of the knowledge, which, as we proceed to the renowned and venerable canon of tradition, from the creation of the world, will advance to our view; setting before us what according to natural contemplation necessarily has to be treated of beforehand, and clearing off what stands in the way of this arrangement. So that we may have our ears ready for the reception of the tradition of true knowledge; the soil being previously cleared of the thorns and of every weed by the husbandman, in order to the planting of the vine. (The Stromata, Book I, Chapter I: "Preface-The Author's Object-The Utility of Written Compositions"; ANF, Vol. II)

So also are we bound in no way to transgress the canon of the Church. And especially do we keep our profession in the most important points, while they [the heretics] traverse it. Those, then, are to be believed, who hold firmly to the truth.

. . . it is necessary to condescend to questions, and to ascertain by way of demonstration by the Scriptures themselves how the heresies failed, and how in the truth alone and in the ancient Church is both the exactest knowledge, and the truly best set of principles (airesis). (The Stromata, Book VII, 15)

As, then, if a man should, similarly to those drugged by Circe, become a beast; so he, who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men, has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord. (The Stromata, Book VII, 16)


eeing, therefore, the danger that they are in (not in respect of one dogma, but in reference to the maintenance of the heresies) of not discovering the truth; for while reading the books we have ready at hand, they despise them as useless, but in their eagerness to surpass common faith, they have diverged from the truth. For, in consequence of not learning the mysteries of ecclesiastical knowledge, and not having capacity for the grandeur of the truth, too indolent to descend to the bottom of things, reading superficially, they have dismissed the Scriptures.

. . . So, then, they are not pious, inasmuch as they are not pleased with the divine commands, that is, with the Holy Spirit. And as those almonds are called empty in which the contents are worthless, not those in which there is nothing; so also we call those heretics empty, who are destitute of the counsels of God and the traditions of Christ; bitter, in truth, like the wild almond, their dogmas originating with themselves, with the exception of such truths as they could not, by reason of their evidence, discard and conceal. (The Stromata, Book VII, 16)


. . . having grown old in the Scriptures, and maintaining apostolic and ecclesiastic orthodoxy in doctrines, lives most correctly in accordance with the Gospel, and discovers the proofs, for which he may have made search (sent forth as he is by the Lord), from the law and the prophets . . . nothing but deeds and words corresponding to the tradition of the Lord.

(The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 16: "Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy are Distinguished"; cf. ANF, Vol. II, 550-554)


Those, then, that adhere to impious words, and dictate them to others, inasmuch as they do not make a right but a perverse use of the divine words, neither themselves enter into the kingdom of heaven, nor permit those whom they have deluded to attain the truth. But not having the key of entrance, but a false (and as the common phrase expresses it), a counterfeit key (antikleis), by which they do not enter in as we enter in, through the tradition of the Lord, by drawing aside the curtain; but bursting through the side-door, and digging clandestinely through the wall of the Church, and stepping over the truth, they constitute themselves the Mystagogues of the soul of the impious.

For that the human assemblies which they held were posterior to the Catholic Church requires not many words to show.

. . . it is evident, from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the Church, that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions falsified [from the truth].

From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God's purpose are just, are enrolled. For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.

Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith - which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord - those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous.

But the pre-eminence of the Church, as the principle of union, is, in its oneness, in this surpassing all things else, and having nothing like or equal to itself. But of this afterwards.

Of the heresies, some receive their appellation from a [person's] name, as that which is called after Valentinus, and that after Marcion, and that after Basilides, although they boast of adducing the opinion of Matthew [without truth]; for as the teaching, so also the tradition of the apostles was one. Some take their designation from a place, as the Peratici; some from a nation, as the [heresy] of the Phrygians; some from an action, as that of the Encratites; and some from peculiar dogmas, as that of the Docetae, and that of the Harmatites; and some from suppositions, and from individuals they have honoured, as those called Cainists, and the Ophians; and some from nefarious practices and enormities, as those of the Simonians called Entychites.

(The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 17)
_________________
http://www.apologeticacatolica.org
"Para mis pies, antorcha es tu Palabra, luz para mi sendero"

[Guamani]

[salvador melara]

[excelsior1015]

[José Miguel Arráiz]

[Heremeuta]

La sola scriptura, no es un dogma al estilo romano; sino un ideal que se desprende del espiritu del canon biblico...el cual ayuda a no desviarce de la verdad.
Los sacerdotes romanos señalan al canon escritural como "la palabra de Dios", no asi con los desprendimientos del magisterio de la iglesia ni con la dogmatica romana...porque sera?
_________________
La verdad nos hace libres

[Heremeuta]

[José Miguel Arráiz]

[pelicano]

[José Miguel Arráiz]

De hecho, aquí hay una gran contradicción:

"Estimado, el canon fué establecido por cristianos que estaban en la iglesia catolica, pero NO fué escrito por ellos."

Sinceramente, no se si sabe lo que dice...
_________________
http://www.apologeticacatolica.org
"Para mis pies, antorcha es tu Palabra, luz para mi sendero"

[Javier Valdiviezo Olivas]

[José Miguel Arráiz]

[Javier Valdiviezo Olivas]