Posted on 10/03/2001 9:38:09 AM PDT by malakhi
| Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. -- In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. -- The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. -- A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. -- Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. -- Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure -- reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. — George Washington |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 154
2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
BigMack
You were going to Catholic church. At some point you stopped because of certain beliefs. I'm sure you didn't get up and yell at the priest in the middle of Mass and storm out, but you went one week and then never came back. That is a protest against what the Catholic Church teaches. Protest-ant: one who protests the Catholic Church's authority.
If you are not a Christian at all I apologize for calling you a Protestant. If you are a Christian, there are three recognized types. Choose one.
I said Air Force. Why did you assume "Army"?.
I read "air force" and probably meant to generalize it to all of the armed forces. But I wrote "army." Sorry. The Armed forces don't fool around with all kinds of denominations. If you're Christian you get to choose Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. It's generally understood that these are your choices.
SD
Excellent, we agree that God's Word is not restricted only to what is written down.
How do we know who wrote them? They are in harmony with each other, and when they were written there were many still alive that were able to read what they had written and could testify to whether or not they supported the contents of the writings,
This does not answer the question who wrote them. However, based on your response, it would appear you are supporting that Church tradition gives us this information.
If a writer was not part of the original 12, or involved with them individually, or was not made known to the readers and acknowledged them as authentic, or if even then, they taught an obvious doctrine that was in conflict with the known writings, they should not be accepted as anything other then interesting observations.
Sounds to me like you also acknowledge the authority of the Church to make this determination. If not, who else would?
Of course there is no list, just as there was no list of the OT books until men got together under Gods direction, (willing or not willing) and made one.
Good description of the Magesterium.
8) How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired? The same way the Jews know that what Moses wrote 3500 years ago are still their spiritual compass today.
So we have to take the word of the early church leaders who were around at the time. Excellent.
SD
Someone had to make that decision and it was the early Church, led by the HS of course.
It’s claim is by example, those who do not take it as sole authority and come up with their own doctrine and beliefs have problems that reflect their wrong decisions, such as the inquisition and the acceptance of falsified writings that bring a cloud of mistrust and suspicion that can sometimes never be erased.
However the bible does not make that claim itself. I knew the inquisitions and decretals would have to find their way into someone’s answer.
Because I have yet to see a salvation matter that can not be found in the Bible.
It’s the interpretation that can lead people down a wrong path.
The confusion came from individuals who’s personal beliefs were threatened or were disproved by something in these books, but even so, with the magnificence of how it was written and controlled by God, it all started coming together into one.
This of course is your personal understanding however, a group of men, under the guidance of the HS called the Magesterium, decided what books to put in the Canon.
Because the Holy Spirit is individual in each of us, and not one size fits all.
As I stated previously, there is only one truth, not many truths. The HS can only be true, not different.
Catholics see differences as contradictions and confusion, but it is only such if you have spent your whole life marching in a different step
Did not answer the question of who can authoritatively arbitrate differences between Christians.
Then why do you always tell Catholics we are in error in what we believe?
I feel that the 1500 years or so that were between the death of the apostles and the publishing of the written word was a time that God allowed for man to see that his way will not work,
As you stated this is your understanding. I just happen to disagree with it.
I have never heard of this Church established by Thomas in India, who you claim is in communion with the Catholic Church so I can not comment on it other then to say, it this story turns out to be as convoluted as all the other claims I have been referenced to, it will probably end up being a plus for non Catholics rather then a minus.
This is not a claim it can be proven. Of course, the bible doesn’t tell us where Thomas went so we need to rely on non biblical accounts to get the story.
It’s because Christ is the chief corner stone, and the Church is a spiritual state of mind, and not a physical building which most Catholics can not differentiate between.
As you stated this is your understanding. I just happen to disagree with it.
Interesting response Big Mack but it did not answer the question. I am off to Mass so I will pick this up tommorrow.
Peace
Translate please.
BigMack
Excuse me, I had a brain fart. Paul wrote Timothy, Paul is an apostle, so an apostle answers your question.
Let me break this down and see if I can make sense out of it.
"If the Bible (Sola Scriptura) is the ultimate rule of faith, why does the Bible call the Church the foundation and pillar of truth?"
"If the Bible is the ultimate rule of faith, why does the Bible call the Church the foundation and pillar of truth?"
(Translation)
If you receive all your faith from the Bible, why is the Church called the foundation and pillar of truth?
Where do you find that?
1 Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
My foundation is in Christ, then his word helps me to better understand what he wants of me and how I should conduct my self, and who he is.
Let me say this, if all the Bibles were destroyed, I would not loose my faith, since I have already established what I believe.
I don't know another way to answer this, but if it's not satisfactory, it's not because I'm avoiding it, it's because I don't understand it.:-)
I've done a little homework on the area. I was inviting y'all to do the same. (And in the STL area we have about 68 separate "denominations" listed in the yellow pages. I didn't count Buddhism or Latter Day Saints but I did count all the variations of Lutherans and Baptists and Church of God)
Can you not see how 68, or 20, or even 2 Christian "denominations" are a cause of scandal to the Body of Christ?
I know that Christians of the non-Catholic/Orthodox (a schism which is a scandal as well) variety have split with each other over petty things. But some, if not all, of the issues that allend brought up in Thread 154:99 which you guys disagree on are, IMHO are not of the petty kind but rather are the kind that can have eternal consequences.
Pray for John Paul II
SD
This is a command from Jesus to write the Gospels? If anything it is an argument for a continuing apostlehood, a succession of apostolic authority, a magisterium. "we write you nothing but what you can read and understand" This can mean that there is much more to be taught but that it is not easy for all to "read and understand"
New American Standard 2 Corinthians 1:13 For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end;
-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha 2 Corinthians 1:13 In our writing, there is nothing that you cannot read clearly and understand;
-- New Revised Standard with Apocrypha 2 Corinthians 1:13 For we write you nothing other than what you can read and also understand; I hope you will understand until the end--
SD, I hope that was a joke. "there is nothing that you cannot read clearly and understand" Of course Paul had never met SD
Sola Scriptura literally means Scripture alone. That does not mean that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura says that only scripture can be used for the formation of theology.
Ah! You have broken ranks with Protestantism.
59 Posted on 10/03/2001 13:14:08 PDT by allend
I believe those insisting on using the term "Sola Scriptura" set up a false premise.
I believe we should as followers of the Christ take G-d's Word very very seriously.
Tehillim (Psalm) 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour!
XeniaSt
OK, I'm answering this as a Catholic. You see, we have been at this long enough that I can give you a reasonable argument for either side,
Note smiley face---> :-)
[13] When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? [14] And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. [18] And I say also unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Now the Greek lessen. The word used to refer to Peter all along has been Petros, That does not change for this verse, nor does it change after. This can be seen in verse 22 in which he is again referred to as Petros - not Petra which is the word translated to the english as Rock. In all other cases in the Bible where spiritual matters are concerned - all of them, The Rock means Jesus - the Spiritual Rock. Peter's name does not change here. The same Greek word used to describe peter before now is still applied.
Next, what is it they are talking about, this is not a carnal truth being discussed. They had just finished discussing the Worthless doctrine of the Sadducees and Pharisees whom Jesus called an adulterous and wicked generation because they sought a sign rather than God. And because they could read the weather and predict it but could not read the signs of the times. They were spiritually blind - their focus was not on God; but, on the carnal things. And we are back to a spiritual conversation again - the foundation of the Church.
Jesus tells Peter that he is Peter, And Jesus will found his church on the Rock - the Petra. Now, we already know who the Rock is in spiritual terms - Jesus our Lord. Stop for a minute and let's rewind.
'Who do you say I am?'
'You are the Christ.'
'Right, and I say to you that you are Peter',
PUASE: Acknowledgement You know who I am and I know who you are.
'and upon this Petra I will build [of me] my church.'
Ok now look at the conversation it becomes even more obvious. Jesus knows that Petros is the man's name and he acknowledges it. He purposedly chooses to say that on the Petra will he build his church - not on the Petros. The two words mean different things by definition. That the difference is intended can be further shown in the actual Greek. the greek uses multiple gender and tense of particular words "The" is one of them. The words Petros and petra are different gender: Petros being masculine (thus the male Peter), and Petra being feminen. Don't get caught up on this too quickly, there is a reason for it. Let's first look at the word groupings of the translation:
verse 18 again word groupings in order of translation from the greek: [*And I also][to thee][say][(0)-][thou][art][Peter][and][on][this] [(1)-][rock][I will build][of me][the][church][and][(the)gates] [of hades][*will not prevail against][it]. Things to note are the *combined meaning of paired words, (0) - dropped word (that/though) understood. (1) [dropped understood] fem. form of the word "the"!
Anyone understanding the language understands that in translation, inflection, tense and gender are important, Most important here is the Tense of the word the applied to Petra, a fem. word by translation. The fem. form means a Mass of Rock (literally or figuratively) Size counts in a foundation. The fem. modifier to the word the means that the gender of the word was intended. Petros, a Masculine form, which by translation means a Piece of Rock. By definition, if we are talking about comparison, there is a smaller form that refers to pebbles, then there is Petros (medium sized), then their is Petra (massive).
The fem. form Petra is not intended to reference a name, but a distinction in state of being. One can understand this if one understands Greek. Being large and being small is a difference and a noteable one in a language based in states of being. But this is a spiritual reference to Christ. And in that context, there is none bigger or more solid/sure.
So, we can now look back again and look at the exchange:
'Who do you say I am?'
'You are the Christ.'
'Right, and I say to you that you are Petros(the piece of rock/median sized rock)',
PUASE: Acknowledgement You know who I am and I know who you are.
'and upon this Petra(massive rock)[fem. differentiation from the masculine form] I will build [of me] my church.'
So, we have two powerful differentiations made in the words chosen. We have the differentiation between fem and masculine. And we have a major size difference ingendered in the words. And we have modification of the grammer showing intended purposeful selection of differentiated words. I might add for those who want to quote non-existant Aramaic references that there is an equivalant in Aramaic for A Mass of rock. And you well know it. Cephas is not the only word in Aramaic that means rock of any form. Petra is used to reference huge masses of Rock. Petros is used to reference median masses. In other words if Petros would be used to denote a cliff, then Petra would comparatively be a Mountain.
Anyone wish to add to this?
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.