Alasan reformed dan protestan bersolascriptura

[solideogloria]

Maximinus, who used the principle of Scripture alone to introduce teachings which were contrary to Scripture, so the Church of Rome appeals to tradition to introduce teachings which are contradictory to both tradition and Scripture.
    That Augustine believed in the sufficiency and supreme authority of the Scriptures is also evidenced in his description of their function and the response to which he called his hearers regarding them. As to function, Augustine taught that the Scriptures guard against error,268 enable the faithful to overcome iniquity,269 and heal the ailments of the soul.270 He exhorts his hearers and readers to know the books of Scripture, to read them, commit them to memory and diligently study them.271Â They are to be believed without doubt or hesitation,272 considered as the authoritative standard,273 received as true and submitted to as the supreme authority;274 and wholeheartedly embraced.275 Augustine believed the Scriptures to be the ultimate authority for the Church. A.D.R. Pohlman comments:
From his first writings onward, St. Augustine was clearly and fully convinced of the divine authority of Holy Writ, and recognised no authority above it. In his famous discussion with Jerome he observed that Scripture must be placed on the highest pinnacle of authority.276
We have examined the teaching of the Apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus and Augustine. We have seen conclusively that all looked to Scripture as the ultimate authority for the Church. The Scriptures were the only source of truth for the faith of the Church and the all–sufficient deposit of the apostolic tradition. The tradition preached orally by the bishops of the Church was identical in content to the teaching of Scripture. Not one doctrine necessary for salvation had been handed down orally from the apostles that was independent of the Scriptures. They were and are, therefore, materially sufficient. These fathers universally taught that all doctrinal teaching must be proven and validated from Scripture. Any doctrine which could not be proven from Scripture was rejected as a false tradition, even though it might claim apostolic authority. Jerome epitomizes the overall view attitude of the Church fathers when he says:
The other things, also, which they find and feign, of themselves, without the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, as if by apostolical tradition, the sword of God [the word of God in the Scriptures] strikes down.277 Â
Scripture was the ultimate judge and arbiter in all doctrinal controversies. The fathers agreed that the Church’s authority was contingent upon her conformity to Scripture. In addition to the fathers cited, there are others whose writings reflect this same belief in the authority, primacy and sufficiency of Scripture. These include Hippolytus, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Marius Victorinus, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, Jerome, Theophilus of Alexandria, Niceta of Remesiana, John Cassian, Theodoret, John of Damascus, Cyril of Alexandria, Salvian the Presbyter, Cesarius of Arles, Vincent of Lerins, Gregory the Great and Cosmus of Indicopleustus.278 Earlier, we quoted Philip Blosser:
The doctrine that Scripture alone is sufficient to function as the regula fidei—the infallible rule for the ongoing faith and life of the Church—is of highly improbable orthodoxy since...it had no defender for the first thirteen centuries of the Church. It does not belong to historic Christianity.279 Â
The above documentation demonstrates the fallaciousness of Blosser’s assertion. Such statements manifest an ignorance of the patristic and medieval perspective on the authority of Scripture. Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages. J.N.D. Kelly affirms this in the following summation of the teaching of the fathers on the authority, primacy and sufficiency of Scripture:
The supreme doctrinal authority remained, of course, the original revelation given by Christ and communicated to the Church by His apostles. This was the divine or apostolic ‘tradition’ (paradosis; traditio) in the strict sense of the word. It was with reference to this that Cyprian in the third century could speak, of ‘the root and source of the dominical tradition’, or of ‘the fountain–head and source of the divine tradition’, and that Athanasius in the fourth could point to ‘the tradition...which the Lord gave and the apostles proclaimed’ as the Church’s foundation–stone. That this was embodied, however, in Holy Scripture, and found a parallel outlet in the Church’s general unwritten teaching and liturgical life, was taken for granted, and the use of the term ‘tradition’, with or without such qualifications as ‘ecclesiastical’ or ‘of the fathers’, to describe this latter medium now became increasingly common.
    There is little need to dwell on the absolute authority accorded to Scripture as a doctrinal norm. It was the Bible, declared Clement of Alexandria about A.D. 200, which, as interpreted by the Church, was the source of Christian teaching. His greater disciple Origen was a thorough–going Biblicist who appealed again and again to Scripture as the decisive criterion of dogma. The Church drew her catechetical material, he stated, from the prophets, the gospels and the apostles’ writings; her faith, he suggested, was buttressed by Holy Scripture supported by common sense. ‘The holy and inspired Scriptures’, wrote Athanasius a century later, ‘are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth’; while his contemporary, Cyril of Jerusalem, laid it down that ‘with regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures...For our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of the Bible.’
    Later in the same century John Chrysostom bade his congregation seek no other teacher than the oracles of God; everything was straightforward and clear in the Bible, and the sum or necessary knowledge could be extracted from it. In the West Augustine declared that ‘in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all that concerns our belief and moral conduct’; while a little later Vincent of Lerins († c. 450) took it as an axiom the Scriptural canon was ‘sufficient, and more than sufficient, for all purposes’...The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by [Scripture] is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.280  
Roman Catholic theologian, Louis Bouyer, likewise confirms this, writing:

[solideogloria]

...it is right to insist that this narrow ‘biblicism’ is by no means to be confused with the affirmation that the Bible, and in one sense the Bible alone, is the ‘Word of God’ more directly and fully than any of its other expressions, since it alone is so inspired by God as to have him for its author. In making their own this assertion, and giving it the vigour and emphasis so characteristic of their doctrine, the Protestant reformers did not go beyond the unanimous verdict of Judaism on the Old Testament, once constituted, and of the Fathers and theologians on the Bible as a whole. The cautious reservations introduced by modern Catholic writers, as a result of the controversies of the sixteenth century, cannot disguise the fact that the Protestants, in the positive statements we refer to, say no more than the unanimous ecclesiastical tradition...
    The Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine above all, themselves practiced that devotion derived from Scripture, whose ideal the Protestants steadily upheld; they hardly knew any other. No doubt they were much more careful than many Protestants not to isolate the Word of God in its settled form of Scripture from its living form in the Church, particularly in the liturgy. But, this reserve apart...they were no less enthusiastic, or insistent, or formal, in recommending this use of Scripture and in actually promoting it. Particularly from St. John Chrysostom, one might assemble exhortations and injunctions couched in the most forcible terms; they have often been recalled by those Protestants, from the sixteenth century onwards, the best grounded in Christian antiquity. It would be impossible to find, even among Protestants, statements more sweeping than those in which St. Jerome abounds: Ignoratio scripturarum, ignoratio Christi is doubtless the most lapidary, but not necessarily the most explicit.
    What is more, in this case just as when the authority of Scripture is viewed as the foundation of theology, the constant practice of the Church, in the Middle Ages as well as in the patristic times, is a more eloquent witness than all the doctors. In the same way that Popes, Councils, theologians, always resorted to the scriptural argument as the really fundamental one, the practice of the great spiritual writers of every epoch attests the fully traditional character of a devotion based on the Bible. Writers as eminent and influential as Origen in the East and Augustine in the West equally prove the truth of this. Their entire spirituality in both cases is but an immense meditation on Scripture. The same is true of the great teachers of the Middle Ages, who often enough are disciples of both, as was St. Bernard. We can apply to them all that we said of the best of Protestant spirituality: not only did they know the Bible and make abundant use of it, but they moved in it as in a spiritual world that formed the habitual universe of all their thoughts and sentiments. For them, it was not simply one source among others, but the source par excellence, in a sense the only one.281
This point of view is likewise affirmed by the historians G.L. Prestige,282Â H.E.W. Turner,283 Heiko Oberman,284 Jaroslav Pelikan,285 Philip Schaff,286Â Ellen Flesseman–van Leer,287 R.P.C. Hanson,288 and Geoffrey Bromiley.289 
The Post Patristic Age: The Middle Ages
Throughout the Middle Ages the biblical perspectives of the fathers on the supremacy, authority and sufficiency of Scripture were reiterated by the leading theologians of the Western Church. Alister McGrath provides the following summation of this fact:
One of the most enduring, if not endearing, stereotypes of the relation between the Reformation and the late medieval period is that the latter is characterized by an appeal to both scripture and tradition as theological sources, whereas the former appealed to scripture alone (sola scriptura). The Council of Trent, in its decree on scripture and tradition, has generally been regarded as endorsing the medieval view in recognizing these two distinct theological sources. The Reformation, therefore, may be regarded as marking a break with the medieval period this important respect, and Wycliffe and Hus may thus be regarded as ‘Forerunners of the Reformation’. In fact, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that the medieval period in general was characterized by its conviction that scripture was the sole material base of Christian theology, thus forcing us to reconsider what, if anything, was distinctive concerning the Reformation principle of sola scriptura.
    Recent studies have indicated a general medieval consensus on the material sufficiency of scripture—in other words, that scripture contained all that is necessary for salvation. Thus Duns Scotus affirms that ‘theology does not concern anything except what is contained in scripture, and what may be drawn (elici) from this’, the latter being ‘contained there virtualiter’. Indeed, it is evident from even the most superficial reading of late medieval sources that scripture, and scripture alone, was regarded as the materially sufficient source and norm of Christian theology. No other theological source could be regarded as having this status. Is this not what is expressed by the Reformation principle of sola scriptura?290
This position was well expressed by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Norman Geisler comments:
Aquinas insists that ‘the author of holy Scripture is God.’ Thus, ‘revelation is the basis of sacred Scripture or doctrine.’ For ‘holy Scripture looks at things in that they are divinely revealed.’ So it is ‘in Holy Scripture, through which the divine will is revealed to us.’ Citing 2 Timothy 3:16 (‘All Scripture is inspired of God’), Aquinas refers to the Bible as ‘Divinely inspired Scripture.’...While many in modern times have denied the inerrancy of Scripture, there is no question where Aquinas stands on the issue. In his commentary on Job he declares that ‘it is heretical to say that any falsehood whatsoever is contained either in the gospels or in any canonical Scripture.’...Agreeing with Augustine, Aquinas confesses of the books of Scripture, ‘I firmly believe that none of their authors have erred in composing them’ and refers to Scripture as ‘unfailing truth.’291 Â
The Scriptures held a place of supreme authority in the Church. In a quotation previously referenced, Aquinas echoed the sentiments of Basil of Caesarea and Augustine, stating that the teaching of the fathers was received as authoritative only when it could be demonstrated that it was true to Scripture.292  He taught that Scripture alone was the canonical standard of doctrine, and therefore the foundation and source of truth for the faith of the Church: ‘Only canonical Scripture is the rule of faith’ (quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei).293 Note that he used the term sola Scriptura. This particular view was expressed by Anselm (1033–1109) in the following statements:
For, indeed, in our preaching, nothing which Sacred Scripture—made fruitful by the miracle of the Holy Spirit—has not set forth or does not contain is conducive to spiritual salvation. Now, if on the basis of rational considerations we sometimes make a statement which we cannot clearly

[solideogloria]

exhibit in the words of Scripture, or cannot prove by reference to these words, nonetheless in the following way we know by means of Scripture whether the statement ought to be accepted or rejected. If the statement is arrived at by clear reasoning and if Scripture in no respect contradicts it, then (since even as Scripture opposes no truth, so it favors no falsity) by the very fact that Scripture does not deny that which is affirmed on the basis of rational considerations, this affirmation is supported by the authority of Scripture. But if Scripture unquestionably opposes a view of ours, then even though our reasoning seems to us unassailable, this reasoning should not be believed to be supported by any truth. So, then, Sacred Scripture—in that it either clearly affirms them or else does not at all deny them—contains the authority for all rationally derived truths.294
This documentation demonstrates that the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura was not a novel theological concept. It can claim historical continuity with the Church from the patristic age up through the Middle Ages. Roman Catholic medieval scholar, Brian Tierney, summarizes the overall view of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the early Middle Ages:
Such texts were often quoted and discussed by medieval theologians. But, before the thirteenth century, there is little trace in their works of the view that Tradition constituted a source of divine revelation separate from Scripture and little inclination to set up a distinction—still less an opposition—between Scriptural revelation and church doctrine. One modern author has observed that, for twelfth century theologians (as for the Fathers themselves), church and Scripture ‘co–inhered.’ This seems true in the sense that the teaching of the church and the teaching of Scripture were conceived of as essentially one. ‘The men of the Middle Ages lived in the Bible and by the Bible.’ When twelfth century theologians observed—as they sometimes did—that many things were held by the church that were not to be found in Scripture they seem to have had in mind only liturgical customs or pious practices. An extra–Scriptural source of faith like the Apostles’ Creed (which was commonly regarded as a work of the apostles themselves) was held to define various tenets of Christian doctrine with absolute fidelity; but it was not considered to be a body of revealed truth supplementary to sacred Scripture. Rather the Creed could be called in the twelfth century a ‘summary’ of the contents of Scripture. In this view Scripture recorded divine truth once and for all and the living voice of the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, interpreted that truth and proclaimed it anew to each succeeding generation.295 Â
Yves Congar offers this assessment of the period of the Middle Ages:
It was generally held that Scripture contained all the truths of faith necessary for salvation. If a question was put concerning a nonscriptural doctrinal formulation, attempts were made to provide some scriptural reference which was at least equivalent or indirect.296
Richard Muller comments on the historical continuity of the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura with the patristic and medieval Church:
The reading and study of Scripture were central to the theological enterprise of the Middle Ages. Indeed, before the late twelfth century, the Bible was the only ‘set text’ in the medieval schools...Just as the medieval view of the text, canon and exegesis is the proper background against which the Reformation and the subsequent development of Protestant approaches to Scripture must be understood, so also is the medieval doctrine of Scripture the necessary background to an understanding  of the development of an orthodox Protestant doctrine of Scripture. With striking uniformity the medieval doctors declare the authority of Scripture as the divinely given source of all doctrines of the faith...Thomas Aquinas...clearly argues...that Scripture by its very nature is the ground or foundation of necessary argument in theology—whereas other sources, such as the church’s normative tradition, yield up only ‘probable’ arguments...Albert the Great similarly argued the higher certainty of theological science on the ground of the inspiration of Scripture: theology and theologians derive their authority from the books inspired by ‘the Spirit of truth.’ Even so, it is not possible to doubt a single word of Scripture. Reason itself may fall into contradiction but Scripture stands against error as a foundation of truth higher than anything present within the human soul...Alphonsus Vargas held as a basic maxim that all theological statements rested on either ‘a proposition of sacred scripture or were deduced from statements in sacred scripture.’ Indeed, it was the assumption of the theologians of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries that Scripture was the materially sufficient ‘source and norm’ for all theological formulation, granting the inspiration and resulting authority of the text. The language of these thinkers, although not precisely the meaning and application, looks directly toward the Protestant orthodox assumption of a positive biblical principium for theological formulation.297 Â
Louis Bouyer draws a similar conclusion:
…it is right to insist that this narrow ‘biblicism’ is by no means to be confused with the affirmation that the Bible, and in one sense the Bible alone, is the ‘Word of God’ more directly and fully than any of its other expressions, since it alone is so inspired by God as to have him for its author...St. Augustine may be said to have given definite expression to this in a passage of his 19th letter to St. Jerome, repeated so often by writers in the Middle Ages: ‘To those books of Scripture alone that are now known as canonical I have learned to pay the honour and respect of believing firmly that none of their authors made any mistake in what they wrote.’ St. Thomas, far from moderating this expression, brings out its doctrine most precisely in the beginning of the Summa Theologica. The scriptural books alone, in and by themselves, enjoy absolute authority, since the Christian faith rests entirely on the revelation made by God to the apostles, and before them to the prophets; it is handed down to us with the direct authority of God only in the canonical books. All other writers, including the doctors of the Church, can by themselves only be the basis of probable arguments. Arguments drawn from Scripture are alone by themselves conclusive. Therefore, the Bible alone provides the real foundations for sacred science.
    Duns Scotus is no less trenchant. According to him, Scripture alone is necessary and sufficient to make known to man the truths of salvation. That does not mean that all other kinds of writings, within and even outside the Church, may not be useful in this respect; but they cannot do more than throw additional light on our understanding of Scripture. Likewise, all the work of theologians and doctors only serves to bring out the content of Scripture.298
Clearly, the teaching of the Church of the early Middle Ages was consistent with that of the patristic age on the sufficiency and primacy of Scripture. As Roman Catholic scholar George Tavard puts it:

[solideogloria]

The greatest centuries of the Middle Ages—twelfth and thirteenth—were thus faithful to the patristic concept of ‘Scripture alone’.299 Â
A shift took place in the teaching of the later Middle Ages, however, which Heiko Oberman has documented in his book The Harvest of Medieval Theology. He writes of two opposing views on tradition that developed after the fourteenth century which he calls Tradition I and Tradition II. Tradition I is the historic position of the patristic and early Middle Ages, that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Scripture is the materially sufficient source of all doctrine for the Church and tradition the authoritative ecclesiastical interpretation of that standard. Tradition II, however, made tradition more than the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. It became a source of revelation, supposedly containing truths which were handed down orally from the apostles and independent of Scripture. This meant that Scripture was not materially sufficient. As Oberman writes:
Tradition I, then, represents the sufficiency of Holy Scripture as understood by the Fathers and doctors of the Church. In the case of disagreement between these interpreters, Holy Scripture has the final authority...Since the appeal to extrascriptural tradition is rejected, the validity of ecclesiastical traditions and consuetudines is not regarded as ‘self–supporting’ but depends on its relation to the faith handed down by God in Holy Scripture...
    The second concept of tradition, Tradition II, refers to the written and unwritten part of the apostolic message as approved by the Church...Ecclesiastical traditions, including canon law, are invested with the same degree of authority as that of Holy Scripture.300 Â
Alister McGrath concurs:
Whatever the origins of the ‘two source’ theory may have been, the late medieval tradition unquestionably included representatives of a school which insisted that ‘there are many truths which are necessary for salvation which are neither contained in scripture, nor which are necessary consequences of its contents’.301
This two source theory of revelation eventually found dogmatic formulation in the decrees of the Council of Trent on Scripture and Tradition. These decrees state that the revelation of God was contained in both the written Scriptures and the unwritten traditions. The point Oberman makes is that the decrees of Trent, sanctioning tradition as a vehicle of revelation, thereby rendering Scripture materially insufficient, are inconsistent with the historic testimony of the patristic and Middle Ages. The opinion of the fathers and theologians throughout the history of the Church and up to the Reformation was overwhelmingly in favor of the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura and antithetical to the position of the Council of Trent. Contrary to claims by Roman Catholic apologists, the principle of sola Scriptura is not only biblical, it is historical. It is Roman Catholic teaching, as defined by the Council of Trent, which is, in fact, unhistorical.


SELAMAT MEMBACA RIA KARENA SAYA TIDAK MEMUTILASI  !

[solideogloria]

LOL... Anda mengira bahwa “holy tradition” yg disebut oleh Cyprian ini adalah “Tradisi Suci” Gereja Katolik??
Bro Soli, sebelum Anda memotong2 tulisan2 teolog Gereja Purba, mbok sekali2 Anda baca dulu tulisan itu secara utuh, atau setidaknya dibaca kalimat2/paragraf2 pendahulu dan selanjutnya, supaya Anda tahu apa yg sedang dibicarakan di situ.

Cyprian dalam Epistle 74 ad Pompeium ini, sedang menulis kepada Pompeius mengenai ajaran Uskup Stefanus mengenai baptisan para bidaah. Stefanus mengatakan bahwa baptisan bidaat itu sama sahnya dengan baptisan Gereja, dan oleh karenanya Stefanus menerima komunion dengan bidaah2 itu, dan mengatakan hal ini sebagai tradisi yang benar. Justru Cyprian ini sedang mengolok2 ajaran Stefanus dan mengatakan tradisi Stefanus itu adalah “holy tradition" yang harus dicermati.
Tidak percaya? Silakan Anda baca paragraf2 pendahulunya dari kutipan tersebut. Untuk memudahkan, kutipan Anda aku bold dalam kutipan yg lebih panjang ini.

Cyprian to his brother Pompeius, greeting. Although I have fully comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the letters of which I sent you copies, dearest brother, yet, since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God. For among other matters, which were either haughtily assumed, or were not pertaining to the matter, or contradictory to his own view, which he unskilfully and without foresight wrote, he moreover added this saying: «If any one, therefore, come to you from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated (or done) which has not been handed down, to wit, that hands be imposed on him for repentance; since the heretics themselves, in their own proper character, do not baptize such as come to them from one another, but only admit them to communion.»

 He forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is, he judged the baptism of all heretics to be just and lawful. And although special heresies have special baptisms and different sins, he, holding communion with the baptism of all, gathered up the sins of all, heaped together into his own bosom. And he charged that nothing should be innovated except what had been handed down; as if he were an innovator, who, holding the unity, claims for the one Church one baptism; and not manifestly he who, forgetful of unity, adopts the lies and the contagions of a profane washing. Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: «The book of this law shall not depart out of your mouth; but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written therein.» Joshua 1:8 Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.

Link ke naskah utuhnya: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm

Selamat membaca!

Memang itulah yang selalu saya kritik dan tekankan bahwa tradisi yang dimaksud didalam Kitab Suci adalah sama sekali bukan tradisi bikinan GRK seperti yang ada sekarang ini.

Tradisi Suci adalah wahyu atau pengajaran Yesus yang diterima oleh para Rasul dan sebagian masih berbentuk lisan dan sebagian sudah tertulis pada masa itu.

Tetapi sekarang semua wahyu Tuhan bagi keselamatan manusia sudah sepenuhnya cukup didalam Kitab Suci (Scripture sufficiency) dan tidak perlu ditambahi lagi dengan segala macam tradisi rekayasa gereja apalagi yang jelas jelas sudah menyimpang jauh dari ajaran para Rasul itu.

[solideogloria]

Diambil dari katolisitas.org:
Sola Scriptura adalah doktrin Protestan yang mengatakan bahwa Kitab Suci adalah “sumber otoritas yang terutama dan absolut, keputusan akhir dalam menentukan, untuk semua doktrin dan praktek (iman dan moral)” dan bahwa “Kitab Suci, tidak lebih dan tidak kurang, dan tidak ada lagi yang lain- yang diperlukan untuk iman dan moral.
(diterjemahkan dari Geisler, Norman L. dan MacKenzie, Ralph E., Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) )

Kitab Suci :

1.   Sumber otoritas yang absolut

2.   Otoritas final

3.   Cukup pada dirinya sendiri

Prinsip itulah yang selalu dikatakan oleh para teolog klasik yang saya kutip itu !

Itulah inti ajaran Sola Scriptura atau Back to Bible !

Jadi jelas bahwa otoritas Kitab Suci adalah satu satunya “Regula Fidei” bagi gereja dan semua doktrin gereja harus diuji oleh Kitab Suci yang berotoritas absolut itu.

Tradisi Suci adalah bagian dari Kitab Suci yang belum dalam bentuk tertulis pada saat para Rasul menulis berdasarkan inspirasi Roh Kudus tersebut.

Quote from: solideogloria on Yesterday at 12:06:29 PM
Silahkan dijelaskan agar menjadi terang benderang mengapa GRK menolaknya ?[/b][/color]

Tentu saja ajaran ini ditolak, karena para rasul dan penerus2 rasul tidak pernah mengajarkan demikian!
Kitab Suci sendiri mencatat ajaran untuk memegang teguh ajaran yg disampaikan oleh para rasul, baik ajaran tertulis (dalam Kitab Suci maupun dalam tulisan2 lain) DAN ajaran lisan ( 2 Tes 2 : 15 ).

Alasan utama hanyalah kalau ketiga kriteria Kitab Suci diatas dipegang teguh oleh gereja kristen maka semua ajaran palsu tradisi GRK akan terbongkar sebagaimana yang sudah terjadi diabad ke-16 oleh gerakan Reformasi.
Kalau tidak ada larangan GRK untuk memiliki dan bebas membaca Kitab Suci sejak dulu,maka gerakan reformasi tersebut selayaknya sudah jauh hari lebih awal lagi terjadinya.

JADI  SEMUA TRADISI REKAYASA GRK TIDAK AKAN TAHAN UJI OLEH KEBENARAN Kitab Suci !

Inilah alasan yg sebenarnya mengapa GRK menolak prinsip Sola Scriptura !

Quote from: solideogloria on Yesterday at 12:06:29 PM
1 Tesalonika 5:21 Ujilah segala sesuatu dan peganglah yang baik.

1 Yohanes 4:1 Saudara-saudaraku yang kekasih, janganlah percaya akan setiap roh, tetapi ujilah roh-roh itu, apakah mereka berasal dari Allah; sebab banyak nabi-nabi palsu yang telah muncul dan pergi ke seluruh dunia.

Kisah Para Rasul 17:11Orang-orang Yahudi di kota itu lebih baik hatinya dari pada orang-orang Yahudi di Tesalonika, karena mereka menerima firman itu dengan segala kerelaan hati dan setiap hari mereka menyelidiki Kitab Suci untuk mengetahui, apakah semuanya itu benar demikian.

Apakah perintah menguji  oleh Tuhan diatas tidak berlaku untuk semua tradisi GRK selama ribuan tahun sampai saat ini ?

Kalau tidak berlaku apa alasannya ?

Kalau berlaku pakai apa anda menguji semua tradisi rekayasa GRK tsb ?

Tentu saja kami menguji segala ajaran, tapi tidak dengan Kitab Suci saja, melainkan dengan ajaran lisan DAN ajaran tertulis, baik ajaran tertulis dalam Kitab Suci maupun ajaran tertulis dalam tulisan2 lain.

Bagaimana anda menguji bahwa tulisan tulisan ,tradisi tradisi dan ajaran ajaran lain itu apakah itu merupakan kebenaran Tuhan sesuai dengan wahyu-Nya didalam Kitab Suci atau tidak ?

Atau anda menganggap Kitab Suci wahyu Tuhan yang diinspirasilan sendiri oleh Roh Kudus itu sama saja otoritasnya dengan semua klaim ajaran,tulisan dan tradisi bikinan manusia belaka itu ?

Apakah Magisterium yang dikepalai Paus anda itu sebagai ukuran yang absolut didalam menguji kebenaran ajaran gereja ?

Quote from: solideogloria on Yesterday at 12:06:29 PM
Kalau anda menolak prinsip Sola Scriptura berarti anda juga menolak otoritas Kitab Suci sebagai alat penguji semua doktrin gereja !

Kalau demikian pakai apa anda mengujinya ?

1.   Apa ditelan bulat bulat saja
2.   Diuji oleh magisterium yang terdiri dari manusia yang berdosa itu ?
3.   Diuji oleh Paus yang moralnya banyak tercemar itu ?
4.   Diuji oleh Kitab Suci agama lain ?
5.   Diuji oleh para ahli Filsafat ?
6.   Diuji oleh para Scientist ?
7.   Paganisme Romawi yg sudah sinkretis dengan GRK
8.   Ajaran Mistik Kebatinan,dll

Apakah alat uji anda itu absolut,inerrancy dan infallible atau hanya relatif belaka ?

Menolak sola-scriptura bukan berarti menolak otoritas Kitab Suci, malah sebaliknya kami memegang teguh otoritas Kitab Suci.
Tetapi sekali lagi, ajaran rasul dan ajaran penerus2 para rasul tidak ada satupun  yg hanya menggunakan Kitab Suci dalam menguji doktrin2, melainkan selalu menggunakan Kitab Suci DAN Tradisi Suci (ajaran tertulis selain Kitab Suci + ajaran lisan).
Otoritas terakhir dalam memutuskan suatu doktrin harus diterima atau ditolak pun TIDAK terletak dalam Kitab Suci, melainkan diputuskan dalam sidang para rasul, mengikuti Mat 18 : 18, sebagaimana telah dicontohkan dan dilakukan oleh bapa2 Gereja Perdana dalam konsili2 (misal: konsili  Yerusalem, konsili Nisea, Konsili Efesus, dsb).

Apakah sidang para Rasul yang anda maksudkan diatas itu boleh memberikan ajaran yang menyimpang dari apa yang sudah diajarkan Tuhan Yesus atau dalam arti bahwa hanya kalau apa yang mereka beritakan itu adalah wahyu Tuhan baru bisa mengikat manusia sebagaimana yang dimaksud oleh ayat tsb ?

Apakah otoritas para Rasul lebih besar dari wahyu Tuhan itu sendiri ?

Apakah masih ada ajaran lisan para Rasul yang masih belum tertulis alias kelupaan diinsirasikan oleh Roh Kudus sehingga Kitab Suci itu tidak cukup bagi ‘Regula Fidei” gereja pada saat ini ?

Kalau ada boleh buktikan ajaran apa itu ?

Atas dasar apa semua yg anda anggap ajaran lisan itu memang adalah berasal dari para Rasul yang belum tertulis didalam Kitab Suci dijaman sekarang ini ?

Bolehkah para Rasul tasb mengubah ubah wahyu Tuhan seperti apa yang diklaim sebagai otoritas  Paus anda sbb :

#30. "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."

(#30. "Papa tantae est auctoritatis et potestatis, ut possit quoque leges divinas modificare, declarare, vel interpretari, ad num.")

Source: Lucius Ferraris, “Papa,” art. 2, in his Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica. (“Handy Library”), Vol. 5, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, column 1823, Latin.

Bagaimana pula mungkin seorang manusia walaupun menjabat Paus yaitu jabatan gerejawi yang tidak pernah diajarkan digereja itu boleh merubah rubah Hukum Tuhan ???

Bukankah ajaran para Rasul juga diuji oleh jemaat dengan Kitab Suci  ( Kis.17:11) ?

[solideogloria]

Menolak sola-scriptura bukan berarti menolak otoritas Kitab Suci, malah sebaliknya kami memegang teguh otoritas Kitab Suci.
Tetapi sekali lagi, ajaran rasul dan ajaran penerus2 para rasul tidak ada satupun  yg hanya menggunakan Kitab Suci dalam menguji doktrin2, melainkan selalu menggunakan Kitab Suci DAN Tradisi Suci (ajaran tertulis selain Kitab Suci + ajaran lisan).
Otoritas terakhir dalam memutuskan suatu doktrin harus diterima atau ditolak pun TIDAK terletak dalam Kitab Suci, melainkan diputuskan dalam sidang para rasul, mengikuti Mat 18 : 18, sebagaimana telah dicontohkan dan dilakukan oleh bapa2 Gereja Perdana dalam konsili2 (misal: konsili  Yerusalem, konsili Nisea, Konsili Efesus, dsb).

Kalau Sola Scriptura maksudnya bahwa Kitab Suci adalah :

1.   Sumber otoritas yang absolut

2.   Otoritas final

3.   Cukup pada dirinya sendiri

Apakah anda menolak otoritas Kitab Suci tsb ?

Kalau Tuhan Yesus sendiri selalu mengutip Kitab Suci (bukan tradisi) didalam melawan ajaran para Ahli Taurat dan cobaan si Iblis apakah itu bukan menunjukkan bahwa hanya Kitab Sucilah satu satunya otoritas tertinggi ?
Kalau Tuhan Yesus sendiri sudah mengatakan :

Matius 15:3 Tetapi jawab Yesus kepada mereka: "Mengapa kamupun melanggar perintah Allah demi adat istiadat nenek moyangmu?

Markus 7:8 Perintah Allah kamu abaikan untuk berpegang pada adat istiadat manusia."

Bukankah Kitab Suci lebih berotoritas ketimbang tradisi gereja berlawanan dengan apa yang diajarkan oleh gereja anda yang menganggapnya setara ?

Mazmur 19:8 Taurat Tuhan itu sempurna, menyegarkan jiwa; peraturan Tuhan itu teguh, memberikan hikmat kepada orang yang tak berpengalaman

Yesus sendiri mengatakan mereka sesat karena tidak memahami Kitab Suci !

Matius 22:29 Yesus menjawab mereka: "Kamu sesat, sebab kamu tidak mengerti Kitab Suci maupun kuasa Allah

Yesus tidak mengatakan “kamu sesat karena tidak memahami Kitab Suci,tradisi,katekismus gereja,magisterium,ajaran lisan,ex-cathedra, …dst…dst…dst.

Quote from: solideogloria on Yesterday at 12:07:01 PM
Athanasius (300?-375)

“The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Athanasius, Exhort. ad Monachas).

Athanasius sendiri mengatakan bahwa Kitab Suci sudah cukup mengungkapkan kebenaran Tuhan makanya klaim arogansi gereja anda bahwa tradisi hasil rekayasanya itu sejajar dengan Kitab Suci hanyalah ajaran anti Kitab Suci belaka,karena sudah menyimpang dari Kitab Suci (stranger to Scripture).

Bagaimana mungkin mensejajarkan wahyu Allah dengan tradisi bikinan manusia yang rentas heresy.
Bukti buktinya sudah berjibun saya paparkan di forum ini.

Ini salah satu bukti lagi bagaimana prinsip Sola Scriptura diajarkan oleh teolog klasik.

Weleh... sudah memutilasi ajaran Athanasius, masih ngeyel pula menyelewengkan ajarannya dan mengatakan Athanasius mengajarkan sola scriptura!
Ini lho kalimat utuh dari tulisan Athanasius yg sudah Anda mutilasi itu!
Aku berikan pula link ke naskah aslinya. Jika keberatan dengan versi terjemahan di link tersebut, silakan Anda berikan link terjemahan versi yg Anda percayai, aku jamin 100% bahwa kutipan Anda itu memutilasi tulisan Athanasius yg mengatakan bahwa: "MESKIPUN Kitab Suci cukup untuk menyatakan kebenaran, tetapi ada ajaran2 lain yg berguna dan diteruskan oleh para penerus rasul"!!

Link ke naskah utuh: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm
For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth —while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith.

“The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Athanasius, Exhort. ad Monachas).

Saya tidak melihat bahwa bahwa statement diatas tidak berlaku bahwa apapun tulisan atau ajaran orang/guru tetap harus mengacu kepada kebenaran yang sudah diajarkan didalam Kitab Suci yang sudah cukup pada dirinya itu sehingga tidak harus ditambahi apapun lagi.

Tidak pernah Yesus dan para Rasul menganggap Kitab Suci sederajat dengan tradisi manusia :

Baca lagi penjelasan saya mengenai Kitab Suci dan tradisi manusia diatas !

Justru yang paling banyak terjadi adalah manipulasi GRK yang secara umum dikenal dengan istilah “EQUOIVOCATION  PARALLELISM  FALLACIES” itu.

Buktinya sudah saya berikan jadi itu bukan hanya omong kosong !


Bersambung

[solideogloria]

Sambungan

Quote from: solideogloria on Yesterday at 12:07:01 PM
Prinsip Sola Scriptura adalah menerima ajaran siapapun kalau itu memang didukung oleh kebenaran Kitab Suci dan menolak semua ajaran yang :

1.   Kontradiksi dengan Kitab Suci hasil tulisan para Rasul
2.   Mencederai kebenaran Kitab Suci
3.   Tidak ada dukungan Kitab Sucinya sama sekali.

Aku tidak mempermasalahkan jika Anda mau menerima ajaran manapun dengan syarat apapun.
Yang aku permasalahkan adalah standard ganda yg Anda terapkan.
Anda mengacu tulisan Gregory of Nyssa: “On the soul and resurrection”.
Ajaran Gregory dalam tulisan ini mengenai purgatory Anda tolak, tetapi pada saat yg bersamaan ajaran Gregory untuk mengacu pada Kitab Suci Anda jadikan landasan bersola-scriptura (padahal Gregory of Nyssa mengakui otoritas Kitab Suci tapi tidak pernah bersola scriptura)

Tidak ada standard ganda karena saya selalu hanya berlandaskan kepada satu standard saja yaitu Kitab Suci,berbeda dengan anda yang memang berstandard ganda yaitu selain katanya Kitab Suci juga :

1.   Tradisi gereja

2.   Magisterium

3.   Paus (ex-cathedra)

Saya mengutip Gregory Nyssa hanya sebagai salah satu bukti dari beberapa teolog lainnya yang menyetujui prinsip Sola Scriptura,bukan berarti saya menggunakan opini dia sebagai landasan karena ajaran mengenai Sola Scriptura berjibun didalam Kitab Suci hanya istilahnya saja yang tidak ada sebagaimana istilah Tritunggal.

Jadi jangan mengukurkan baju anda kepada saya karena itu sama sekali tidak akan cocok karena  anda juga bersandar kepada manusia (Magisterium + Pope + Human Tradition),sedangkan saya hanya bersandar kepada Scriptura dan pencerahan Roh Kudus.

Markus 7:7 Percuma mereka beribadah kepada-Ku, sedangkan ajaran yang mereka ajarkan ialah perintah manusia.
7:8 Perintah Allah kamu abaikan untuk berpegang pada adat istiadat manusia."
7:9 Yesus berkata pula kepada mereka: "Sungguh pandai kamu mengesampingkan perintah Allah, supaya kamu dapat memelihara adat istiadatmu sendiri

Semua opini apa yang anda anggap sebagai para Bapa Gereja itu mengenai prinsip Sola Scriptura sudah saya kutip panjang lebar dipostingan sebelumnya.

Quote from: solideogloria on Yesterday at 12:07:01 PM
Tidak mungkin saya mengutip apa yang tidak relevan dan silahkan anda buktikan apa yang salah dari kutipan saya ketimbang hanya bersembunyi dengan kalimat anda tsb diatas.

Lah... Silakan dibaca baik2 postingan2ku itu.
Aku tidak sembarangan mengatakan kutipan Anda salah, justru sebaliknya telah aku berikan kutipan yg lebih lengkap disertai link ke naskah utuhnya, dan sudah aku buktikan bahwa kutipan2 Anda itu telah memutilasi kalimat / paragraf dan diselewengkan artinya dari konteks tulisan itu seutuhnya.
Silakan dibaca baik2 lagi!

Sudah saya kutip pula panjang lebar dari sumber yang saya pakai !

Quote from: solideogloria on Yesterday at 12:07:01 PM
GRK sudah sangat terkenal dengan apa yang disebut sebagai tehnik “equivocation Paralelism Fallacy” yang suka memanipulasi kalimat dengan cara memparalelkan kalimat kalimat sedemikian rupa sehingga makna yang sejatinya direlatifisasikan untuk mendukung ajaran mereka seperti contohnya :

PARALELISME DAN PELABELINGAN MARIA TERHADAP Yesus

LOL... OOT lagi, silakan topik mengenai Maria dibahas di thread terpisah.
Sudah aku tanggapi beberapa tuduhan2 para anti-katolik mengenai Maria di sini:
http://forumimankristen.com/index.php/topic,1850.0.html

Saya hanya mengutip sebagai referensi bukti bahwa gereja anda memang sering memanipulasi dengan tehnik “ Equivocation Parralelism Fallacies” ,bukan utk dibahas karena anda juga sembarangan menuduh saya hanya “memutilasi “ kutipan sepotong sepotong doang !

Setahu saya kita bebas memberikan referensi disini sebagai dukungan argumentasi masing masing.

Jadi kalau satu jari anda menunjuk ke-saya maka jangan lupa ada 3 jari lagi sedang menunjuk kediri anda sendiri.

[solideogloria]

Ajaran menyimpang dari mana dulu nih???
Mungkin ajaran katolik memang menyimpang dari interpretasi sola-scripturist modern, tetapi ajaran Gereja Katolik selalu sama dengan ajaran2 Gereja Perdana, dibuktikan dari tulisan2 bapa2 Gereja Perdana, hasil konsili2 Gereja Purba, dokumen2 sejarah, dsb.

Ajaran Katolik pun tidak pernah menyimpang dari Kitab Suci, karena bapa2 Gereja dan konsili2 Gereja pun selalu menggunakan Kitab Suci dalam mempertahankan doktrin2 Gereja.

Mungkin, ajaran katolik hanya menyimpang dari interpretasi sola-scripturist modern.

Ajaran yang menyimpang dari Alkitab sudah saya berikan buktinya sbb :

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/romanerr1.html

http://katholiksesat.blogspot.com/2010/10/daftar-tradisi-yang-menyimpang-dari.html

http://mendapat-laia.blogspot.com/2012/06/pengajaran-yang-salah-dan-Tuhan-benci.html

http://hbcdelivers.org/list-of-roman-catholic-heresies/

http://carm.org/list-of-roman-catholic-false-teachings

[salt]

Judul threadnya apa yang ditulis apa, sakit apa manusia satu ini ya?
Apakah karena terlalu sering dimomeli oleh sang superpendeta tongky????

[Gavin Tuturuga]

Ajaran yang menyimpang dari Alkitab sudah saya berikan buktinya sbb :

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/romanerr1.html

http://katholiksesat.blogspot.com/2010/10/daftar-tradisi-yang-menyimpang-dari.html

http://mendapat-laia.blogspot.com/2012/06/pengajaran-yang-salah-dan-Tuhan-benci.html

http://hbcdelivers.org/list-of-roman-catholic-heresies/

http://carm.org/list-of-roman-catholic-false-teachings

Itu bukan bukti melainkan opini.
Bedakan itu.
Jangan tetap bodoh seperti gurumu (false teacher).

[solideogloria]

Judul threadnya apa yang ditulis apa, sakit apa manusia satu ini ya?
Apakah karena terlalu sering dimomeli oleh sang superpendeta tongky????

Saya sarankan belajar lagi kepada romomu bagaimana cara berdiskusi secara terhormat dan berkwalitas agar kemampuanmu tidak jalan ditempat seperti ini dan mempermalukan katolikers.

[solideogloria]

Itu bukan bukti melainkan opini.
Bedakan itu.
Jangan tetap bodoh seperti gurumu (false teacher).

Itulah bukti kongkrit akan penyelewengan semua tradisi hasil rekayasa gereja selama ribuan tahun yang tidak tahan uji oleh kebenaran Alkitab dan tidak mampu kamu bantah selain cuap melulu.

Yang bodoh itu hanyalah yang bisanya cuap cuap melulu sepertimu  ini tetapi tidak becus mempertahankan ajaran gerejanya yang jelas jelas sudah anti Alkitab itu.

Ini forum diskusi bukan forum mengoceh tidak fokus !

[salt]

Cuma mengulang ulang, bagai menabuh tong kosong, tong tong tong.......

[Jenova]

@bro soli:
Ingat, ada 2 premis yang kita hadapi di sini!
Premis A: Kitab Suci sebagai kebenaran yang absolut dalam iman kristen
Premis B: Kitab Suci sebagai SATU2NYA kebenaran yang absolut dalam iman kristen

Premis A adalah ajaran apostolik, premis B TIDAK benar dan tidak pernah diajarkan oleh para rasul.

Semua kutipan saya menunjukkan bahwa mereka hanya mengakui Kitab Suci sebagai satu satunya kebenaran yahg Absolut didalam iman kristen (Regula Fidei).

Tradisi Suci adalah wahyu Tuhan yang belum dalam bentuk tertulis bukan seperti semua tradisi rekayasa gereja anda yang berjalan terus selama ribuan tahun dan sudah jauh menyimpang dari Regula Fidei tsb diatas !

Silahkan tunjukkan mana kalimat yang saya kutip itu yang tidak sesuai dengan prinsip Sola Scriptura !

Ingat bahwa dijaman banyak para  teolog klasik itu GRK belum lahir termasuk semua tradisi palsu yg sudah jauh menyimpang itu.

Nope, nope, dan sekali lagi NOPE!!!!
Tulisan2 yg Anda kutip itu SAMA SEKALI tidak menunjukkan sola scriptura (premis B), melainkan mendukung premis A!

Sudah aku tunjukkan dengan jelas di reply #633 dan #645, bahwa Athanasius SAMA SEKALI TIDAK PERNAH BER-SOLA SCRIPTURA, bahkan sebaliknya secara jelas Athanasius mengatakan MESKIPUN Kitab Suci cukup untuk menyatakan kebenaran, tetapi ada ajaran di luar Kitab Suci yang diajarkan oleh penerus2 rasul yang tetap dipegang teguh oleh Gereja!

Sudah aku tunjukkan dengan jelas di reply #643, bahwa "holy tradition" yang dipermasalahkan oleh Cyprian BUKANLAH Tradisi Suci Gereja Katolik, melainkan “tradisi” yang salah yang "disucikan" oleh Uskup Stefanus, dengan kata lain, Cyprian tidak menolak otoritas Tradisi Suci dalam Gereja!!

Sudah aku tunjukkan dengan jelas di reply #616, bahwa Clement of Alexandria dalam tulisan yang sama, di chapter selanjutnya justru menggunakan Tradisi Suci untuk melawan bidaat, dengan kata lain Clement of Alexandria tidak pernah ber-sola scriptura!!

Sudah aku tunjukkan dengan jelas di reply #621, bahwa Tertulian dalam tulisannya “The Flesh of Christ" justru menunjukkan otoritas Gereja yang memegang warisan Tradisi Suci, yang digunakan untuk melawan bidaah Marcion!

Sudah aku tunjukkan dengan jelas di reply##611, bahwa Irenaeus justru menggunakan Tradisi Suci bersama2 dengan Kitab Suci dalam melawan bidaah, dengan kata lain Ireneaus tidak pernah ber-sola scriptura!!

Sudah aku tunjukkan dengan jelas di reply #623, bahwa tulisan Gregory of Nyssa yg Anda gunakan untuk mendukung sola-scriptura itu sebenarnya berbicara tentang ajaran purgatory, yang mati2an Anda tolak dan Anda anggap sebagai ajaran sesat. Jelas tidak mungkin Gregory of Nyssa sedang ber-sola scriptura, bukan??

Kalo bapa2 Gereja ini menggunakan Tradisi Suci DAN Kitab Suci dalam melawan bidaah2, jelas Tradisi Suci ini bukan hal2 yg sama yang telah ditulis dalam Kitab Suci. Tradisi Suci mana lagi yang digunakan oleh para bapa Gereja ini jika bukan Tradisi Suci yang telah dan tetap digunakan oleh Gereja Katolik selama 2 milenia???

Ingat bahwa dijaman banyak para  teolog klasik itu GRK belum lahir termasuk semua tradisi palsu yg sudah jauh menyimpang itu.

LOL!!! Bapa2 Gereja, atau menurut istilah Anda: "teolog klasik",  hidup sebelum Gereja Katolik Roma lahir???
Gereja Katolik Roma didirikan oleh Petrus dan Paulus pada sekitar tahun 42 M, sedangkan  bapa2 Gereja (atau menurut istilah Anda = teolog klasik) bermunculan di abad2 setelahnya.
Get your facts right!!!

Kalau mereka berbicara mengenai tradisi suci itu hanya menyangkut wahyu Tuhan yang sudah diterima oleh para Rasul tetapi masih dalam bentuk lisan bukan seperti semua tradisi karangan gereja seperti yang anda miliki itu.

1 Corinthians 11:2 - Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. I praise you that you keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you (NIV).

Jelas sekali ayat diatas mengatakan bahwa tradisi adalah apa yang sudah diajarkan oleh para Rasul.

Tradisi Suci, baik yang diimani oleh Bapa2 Gereja, yang diimani oleh Gereja Katolik maupun Gereja Orthodox, adalah tradisi rasuliah yg sama yang diwarisi dari para rasul, bisa dibuktikan dari bukti2 sejarah dari jaman Gereja Perdana.
So... apa yg salah dengan Tradisi Suci itu???

2 Tes.2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Jadi tradisi rasuliah pada jaman itu memang ada yang sudah tertulis dan ada yang masih dalam bentuk lisan karena masih didalam proses penulisan.

Private intrepretation!!!! Kesimpulan yang sama sekali tidak masuk akal!
Sama sekali tidak ada indikasi bahwa Paulus menjanjikan semua ajaran lisan akan dituliskan, apalagi untuk meninggalkan ajaran  lisan setelah semua ajaran dituliskan!!

Jadi apa yang saya kritik selama ini yaitu semua tradisi palsu hasil rekayasa gereja anda itu selama ribuan tahun setelah semua para Rasul meninggal bahwa itu sama sekali bukan tradisi rasuliah yang dimaksud didalam Kitab Suci,melainkan hanya doktrin yang direkayasa gereja demi untuk meninggikan manusia menjadi seperti Tuhan atau dewa belaka.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 - We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.

Jelas sekali dikatakan bahwa tradisi disini adalah yang diterima dari para Rasul.

Get your facts right!!!
Sejarah saja Anda tidak tahu! Bagaimana Anda mau membedakan mana yg merupakan ajaran baru dan mana ajaran dari jaman Gereja Perdana?

Mana mungkin ada tradisi para Rasul seperti ajaran ajaran gereja dibawah ini :

... ... ...

My God !!!!! hobinya bikin wahyu baru !!!

Get your facts right!!!

Membedakan Tradisi Suci dan tradisi manusiawi aja tidak bisa, kok bisa2nya menuduh ajaran Gereja Katolik tidak rasuliah??

Membedakan Tradisi Suci yang infallible dengan tradisi Gereja yang fallible saja tidak bisa, kok bisa2nya mengatakan Tradisi Suci Gereja Katolik itu salah???

Supaya tidak OOT, semua copy-paste Anda ttg tuduhan2 kepada Gereja Katolik itu sudah aku klarifikasi di sini!!
 http://forumimankristen.com/index.php/topic,1850.0.html