Posted on 09/28/2001 1:15:53 PM PDT by malakhi
I disagree. The Canon was settled by God. We accepted it. We didn't decide. It is a point which I insist upon grinding into the ground. The council decided nothing other than to accept the will of God as to the Canon. Every believer is free to do the same. Luther's desire to remove some books (as yet unquantified by Conservative til I die) from the Canon has not been followed by Protestantism as he is not any more authoritative than Irenaeus (or any less).
Or you could study Scripture and see that the doctrine of 4 persons is false. Either one.
For the sake of clarity, what do you define as the "full canon?"
After I had posted another link with Catholic documentation I then acknowledged the fact you don't accept or believe it. I then brought up 2 Peter because you had mentioned it a previous post claiming it was lacking many things regarding Peter. It is a well known fact that this is the one book of the NT that has serious questions about who the author is. So what kind of response do I get from you?
Whoa, boy. Let's examine what has lately transpired and see who's being dense here. I put forth a construct based upon what is known from the Bible, the one source I do fully trust.
You claim the bible for your documentation so the only thing you have put forth is the Havoc interpretation of the NT. That’s pretty easy because you don't have to cite sources or provide documentation. All you have to do is give us your infallible interpretations and then assert everything we put forth is bogus. No scholarship involved on your part, just your opinion. Sorry, your claims are bogus without supporting documentation and to date you haven't supplied anything.
, I've read the stuff too. I've also read the assenting views which were more pointed and won the day. The claims of the dissenters were shot down. And I can debunk them pretty quickly with modern parallels. And with parallels of the day.
Really. Do you even know what you are saying here? Are you saying you know without a shadow of doubt that Peter wrote 2 Peter? That you can quickly and easily prove it? What a vain and arrogant claim. Go for it. This should be fun. Maybe you could even cite some sources.
To quote from the book of Havoc "How about some scholarship instead of mischaracterizations and hollow citations."
The Pope doesn't need to make an ex cathedra statement regarding the ordination of women. Per the link I provided you this is "understood as belonging to the deposit of the faith." The letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis confirmed this. Therefore the Pope or the church cannot change this. So I will repeat, the ordination of women in the Catholic Church will NEVER happen.
Unfortunately, the doctrine is not clearly defined in Scripture. The 3 persons are implicitly mentioned in various places, but their relationship is not explicitly spelled out. It took the Church to give final form and definition to the doctrine.
Let me ask you about this? I have a friend who "claims" to be a member of the Assemblies of God. He claims that the congregation that he attends teaches that there is no Trinity. The word is not found in the Bible, so there is no such thing. Where the Father is mentioned, that is God. The Son is Jesus, but He is not God, but a man blessed by God. The Holy Spirit is not God, but God's Grace given to man.
Would the Assemblies of God condone this teaching or would they consider it heretical? Is each individual member allowed to believe what he will concerning the Trinity or any other doctrine for that matter?
The Catholic Church sees that doctrine other than what she teaches to be dangerous to one's soul. One's wrong belief places his soul into eternal jeopardy so long as he holds the unorthodox belief.
I agree with you on most of this. However, it was the council that decided what books were to be included in the Canon. They did this by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The council did not just sit down and declare God's will. Too vague. They had to hash out what belonged in the Canon and what didn't. God did not hand them a list of books to be included in the Canon and say it was His will, now go vote on it. No, God worked through men to settle the Canon for all time.
Luther's desire to remove some books (as yet unquantified by Conservative til I die) from the Canon has not been followed by Protestantism as he is not any more authoritative than Irenaeus (or any less).
So are you saying that the Protestant Bibles contain the books of 1 and 2 Esdra, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees as part of the Bible and not as an added appendix of interesting early Christian literature, otherwise known as the Protestant Apocrypha?
Ooh, ooh, I know, maybe it like where Christ told us, "Call no man on earth father" or when he said, "Their is one mediator between man and God, Christ Jesus" and their are some people who paid no attention to him, and said he didn't mean what he said, could these people who think we have moved into a different time in history be like them?
Christ had to come to us as a man and suffer the trials and tribulations of a man. If He came to us as a God and with the powers of a God, people would have followed Him out of fear because they knew He could change anything if He desired, but because He suffered as a man, they followed Him out of love of who He was and what He taught.
You are right of course and I think all of us consider it quite often, and I did a post on the same subject a month or so ago, but these are doctrinal differences that have put a wedge between us for years, and I think they are better said then harbored inside.
It's like the old psychology of saving up stamps in a marriage, and then when you have a large pile of them, you turn them in all at once, and there goes the marriage.
I think it is better if we can get all these things out in the open and keep them there as long as we harbor no ill will, and as far as us getting mad at times, of course we do, but that is also good at times that we know we have passion in what we believe.
Trying to rehabilitate yourself through rhetoric, Peg?
Hey, all the information on your bogus citations is available quite readily on the internet - just like your cut and paste "Jack Chick"ish tract that you quoted. Don't blame me for your shoddy work.
As for your characterization re: interpretation. No interpretation is required to understand clear commands when we're talking about the movements of people. Try II Timothy 4: 13 "The cloke that I left at Tro'as with Car'pus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments."
I would submit that if you cannot read and properly understand that, you should never have been allowed to graduate from school.
As regards II Peter, It was cannonized and majority opinion was that Peter wrote it. I'd suggest that if you don't like that, you should take it up with the scholars that drew the final conclusions. That group of scholars proffered it up. You are the one attacking it. What's the matter, can't accept the Bible now because it threatens your claims? Grow up peg. And try something other than diversions. If you want to redeem yourself of the mess you created before, you should try providing some scholarship to support your arguments re Babylon. Your documentation before doesn't support the claim you made - not in any way. So, are you going to furnish something that does or surrender the point and admit there is no established common usage and that Peter wasn't writing from Rome? If you are going to keep claiming it, I sure hope you have *something* to base it on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.