The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 155

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

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

[Conservative til I die]

"You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will....." C'mon man! You can debate whether Peter really was the Pope, but let's at least get past this "Peter is a pebble, not the rock" bit. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and there is exactly one place where one with a vivid imagination can claim that Jesus made Peter the Rock.

[Conservative til I die]

The same thing that settles an argument between two men on the meaning of a Constitutional passage - the Constitution.

Really? That's funny. So if that is so, how can there be such thing as a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. If the Supreme Court's job is to decide what is and is not Constitutional, and if we are applying a "Sola Scriptura" (Sola Constitutia maybe?) trait to the Constitution, then it cannot be possible for there to be a split decision, unless (wo)men are using their own personal interpretation of the Constitution, with each of them thinking his decision and the reasoning behind it are impeccable.

Simply put, to put one's faith in a book or document as the root of all truth, there has to be one supreme body whose word on the matter is final, and unchallengable. In the case of a religious matter, that supreme body would have to be divinely anointed for that task. Otherwise you get 28,000 different interpretations of the same couple hundred pages or so.

[Conservative til I die]

As I did on the last thread (and shall continue to do until some of it sinks in), I will point out that this is a false premise. Sola Scriptura does not, REPEAT, DOES NOT believe that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book. ONLY PRIMARILY ON THE BOOK.

Whoa whoa whoa. This is a major backtracking. No sir, from my own reading of these threads, almost every Protestant has affirmed that Sola Scriptura is what its name translates to: Scripture alone.

Now you're telling me that it's Prima Scriptura (?) and that other things now do count? Who gets to decide what this "other" stuff that counts is?

[Conservative til I die]

15) Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, No they don't. They claim to get their doctrines directly from the HS

Meaning that the Holy Spirit is imperfect in about 28,000 ways or just playing tricks on everyone. I hesitate to go any further, since as a Bible-believing Catholic I would rather not go near insulting the Spirit, an unforgivable sin.

or, as an alternative, that the Bible interprets itself.

Again, it cannot be doing a great job, at 28,000 and growing by the day...no, the hour.

[JHavard]

See my 120 please: Any thoughts to add?

I have read it, but I can't seem to grasp what you are saying, sometimes I think I'm getting dyslexic when I try to turn meanings around. I would love to see someone make another analogy of the same situation, where you give someone a descriptive name from one language, which has two separate meanings like (Peter and rock, then it is translated into their common language which has another two words that sound the same but are two different meanings, than translate them again into a third language and still have two words that have the same sound, but different meanings. Arabic = Cephas, Cephas + Greek = Petros, Petros + English = Peter or ? peter?

How's that for a long paragraph.Lol

[Havoc]

"You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will....." C'mon man! You can debate whether Peter really was the Pope, but let's at least get past this "Peter is a pebble, not the rock" bit. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and there is exactly one place where one with a vivid imagination can claim that Jesus made Peter the Rock.

Jesus didn't make Petros the rock. Have a look at 120. I've already delt with your non evidence once. Just because you consistently present the snake oil don't make it any more than whiskey in a goofy bottle. And an argument made for the brick-dumb that don't know any better doesn't sail with people who think for themselves and bother to actually read what you say. you: "Hey, iv'e got genuine faux evidence over here it is 100% real. No better faux evidence will you find anywhere under the sun and it's good for all occasions..." Read. Learn something.

[Conservative til I die]

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.
LOL! So now Sola Scriptura doesn't actually mean Sola Scriptura? How very Clintonesque. Let me guess, the Holy Spirit guided you to this opinion.

I think I'll become a Protestant, since its fun when you are backed into an intellectual corner, to just change the definitions so that you are right again.

[the808bass]

Can you not see how 68, or 20, or even 2 Christian "denominations" are a cause of scandal to the Body of Christ?

No

[Conservative til I die]

Did the early church err in placing women in positions of authority? Psst - sometimes whole churches were just women because Christianity spread, not surprisingly, the fastest in the underclass. In an early document (can't remember the name of it offhand, but it can be found in Paganism and Christianity by MacMullen and Lane (my Greek mentor)), instructions are given to traveling evangelists who come to churches where there are no men. So it was obviously a known quantity. What to do? I guess they just sat around waiting for the men to show up.

Show me this in the Bible. Show me where these women decided not to wait around for the men. Show me where a female consecrated the bread and wine in these all-female masses. Show me how its such an "obvious quantity".

You can't apply one standard for Catholics and one for Protestants. For Catholics, unless its explicitly stated in the Bible, the Catholic position is non-existent or horsecrap. But for you it seems, if something is not mentioned in the Bible either way, Protestants can take free license and offer up their conjecture and say things lke "Obviously" "Probably" or "In my opinion."

[the808bass]

LOL! So now Sola Scriptura doesn't actually mean Sola Scriptura? How very Clintonesque. Let me guess, the Holy Spirit guided you to this opinion.

Hey, just for fun, list the synonyms for venerate... (humming jeopardy theme...)

[conservonator]

Purgatory? You have to be kidding. How does Purgatory contradict Scripture? The concept of purgatory, like the concept of the Trinity though not explicitly mentioned is most certainly inferred. A simple reading of 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a third place, a prison for souls. Since there is a purgatory, than praying for the souls in purgatory is hardly anti-Scriptural. This would be evident to you were you not working from an abridged version of the Bible and could read 2 Maccabeus 12:46

Havoc the rest of your "evidence" has nothing to do with the Magisterium and Holy Traditions of the church. I could point to a rather long list of goofy disciplinary practices common among some neo-Christians like no dancing and no drinking.

Have you come up with a definition of sola scriptura yet?

[Conservative til I die]

How would you define it? Would your definition differ from another person’s definition? Do you see a problem here?

I think you need to ask him if he knows the definition of the word "is" and also if he has a big red bulbous nose, because I think I know who is posting these posts. :

[JHavard]

CTID, do you know how the Power structure at the Vatican is set up? Is it to come from the district Bishops up to another house similar to the congress, then they take it to the Pope to sell him on the idea.

As old as the pope is, he can't be making many decisions, and if he does, who has the power to stop him, if lets say it was a bad decision?

Also who is it that chooses the next pope, and what do they do the rest of the time?

[Havoc]

I have read it, but I can't seem to grasp what you are saying, sometimes I think I'm getting dyslexic when I try to turn meanings around. I would love to see someone make another analogy of the same situation, where you give someone a descriptive name from one language, which has two separate meanings like (Peter and rock, then it is translated into their common language which has another two words that sound the same but are two different meanings, than translate them again into a third language and still have two words that have the same sound, but different meanings. Arabic = Cephas, Cephas + Greek = Petros, Petros + English = Peter or ? peter?

If I understand your point, the confusion is in translating the name into multiple languages. Ignore Cephas. Concentrate on Petra and Petros and read it. Then just realize that every language deals with meaning on their own terms. The importance of English and Arabic are inconsequential to the greek issue. The translation we have came from the Greek. And therefore the Greek is the only thing important here.

[the808bass]

You can't apply one standard for Catholics and one for Protestants. For Catholics, unless its explicitly stated in the Bible, the Catholic position is non-existent or horsecrap. But for you it seems, if something is not mentioned in the Bible either way, Protestants can take free license and offer up their conjecture and say things lke "Obviously" "Probably" or "In my opinion."

If you will allow me to establish the template for the formation of your theology, I will be most satisfied with the blueprint you have laid out for me. Until that distant date, please allow me to define my own theology (or insert comments at will, either way).

If Scripture is our primary source for theology, that does not preclude the usage of other documents. Also, if you wish to be consistent, you must use your own theological system when evaluating a piece of evidence, not the nearest one that serves your purpose.

[Conservative til I die]

LOL! So now Sola Scriptura doesn't actually mean Sola Scriptura? How very Clintonesque. Let me guess, the Holy Spirit guided you to this opinion.

Hey, just for fun, list the synonyms for venerate... (humming jeopardy theme...)

No no no no no. You aren't getting off that easy. Let's get back on this. OK, so now can we also assume that when you say you believe in a Trinity, that you're not really talking about a Trinity but actually a Holy Quartet or even a Sextet??? I mean, its close enough.

[the808bass]

No sir, from my own reading of these threads, almost every Protestant has affirmed that Sola Scriptura is what its name translates to: Scripture alone.

Dear Protestants:
Mr. ConservativeTilIDie is having trouble with something. Will each of you please check in with your understanding of sola Scriptura. To be more specific, does sola Scriptura do away with any function for history, tradition, the church, teachers, etc or does it merely place Scripture above all those other helps as the source for our doctrine and way of life?

Thanks.

[conservonator]

Calling something Holy or tradition makes neither, of necessity, the case. And, as an aside, finding an exception , if you could, does not create a rule. Is that your final answer...?

OOHHH I'm sorry but the answer we were looking for was: I'm a neo-Christian, I define my life of faith, I can derive what ever I want from scripture as long as it fits MY views on what the Bible says.

Thanks for playing.

[Conservative til I die]

Until that distant date, please allow me to define my own theology (or insert comments at will, either way).

YOu don't now how funny this statement really is. 28,000 different groups out there are defining their theology in new and wild ways every day.

If Scripture is our primary source for theology, that does not preclude the usage of other documents.

Uh yes it does. If I say I believe in Sola Scriptura I can't just turn around and say "Well, actually, I don't really believe in Sola Scriptura, I can believe in other documents...of course, only when it suits my agenda.

[JHavard]

No no no no no. You aren't getting off that easy. Let's get back on this. OK, so now can we also assume that when you say you believe in a Trinity, that you're not really talking about a Trinity but actually a Holy Quartet or even a Sextet??? I mean, its close enough.

CTID, forget that question I asked, I'll wait until you finish what ever it is you're smoking, and then ask again.