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
I think hockey lacks a higher profile in Wisconsin because there is no NHL franchise. The University of Wisconsin team does not get much attention in my part of the state. There are some minor league franchises that draw pretty well. I have a nephew who plays hockey and who is pretty good at it. I guess since I didn't grow up with it, I never developed an interest in the sport.
And because you venerate Mary you worship her? Oh, un petit moment. Quelle horreur. Qu'est-ce que c'est? Have you been shot with your own gun?
The following is from a respected Proddie apologist, James White.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach. I Timothy 3:15 describes the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. And what is the truth? The truth, of course, is Jesus Christ. And how do we know Jesus Christ? We know Jesus Christ from his Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to believe in the truth, calls men to believe in Jesus Christ. But the Church does not add revelation or rule over the Scriptures. The Church, being the Bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in the God-breathed Scriptures. Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word was, at one time, spoken. Apostolic teaching was authoritative in and of itself, yet the Apostles proved their message from Scripture. You'll note, for example, Paul's example, in Acts 17:2 or Apollos in Acts 18:28 demonstrating the consistency that existed between the message that they preached and the Old Testament Scriptures. And remember, also, that John commended those in Ephesus in Revelation 2:2 for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, and how would they have done that, if not by the Scriptures? And finally, number four, it is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church. It is in no way a denial that the Holy Spirit is absolutely, positively necessary for anyone to have a full understanding of the Scriptures because they need to be spiritually discerned. What then, is sola Scriptura? Well, the doctrine of sola Scriptura simply states that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith, for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word and is constantly reformed thereby. Now I want you to recognize that I am emphasizing that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is based upon the inspiration of Scripture. Now that term, inspiration, that you will find, for example, in II Timothy 3:16, is really not the best way of rendering the term. The Greek term, theopneustos, is best rendered as "God-breathed." And in fact, in the New International Version, that is how it is rendered. In II Timothy 3:16 we read that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work." We learn from this that Scripture's authority is God's authority. You don't have Scriptural authority over here then God's authority over here. You don't have different authorities in the Church. The authority of the Church is one: God's authority. And when God speaks in Scripture that carries His authority. Notice, for example, from the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 22 when he is talking with the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, he says, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God, for in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels in Heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead have you not read what God spoke to you, saying 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.'" Please notice that from the Lord Jesus' perspective that which was found in Scripture was God speaking and he held those men responsible for what God had said to them, even though what was spoken had been written a thousand years earlier. Scripture is God speaking to man. It is theopneustos. God-breathed. Note as well Peter's words in II Peter 1:20-21, "Knowing this first of all that no Scriptural prophecy ever came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For no prophecy ever was born by the will of man. Rather, while being carried along by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God." That is why the Scriptures can function as a rule of faith for the Church, because they are God-breathed. What God says is the final authority for the Church. The great reformer of Geneva, John Calvin, said concerning this, "This, then, is the difference. Our opponents (speaking of the Roman Catholic Church) locate the authority of the Church outside God's Word, that is, outside of Scripture and Scripture alone. But we insist that it be attached to the Word and to not allow it to be separated from it. And what wonder if Christ's bride and pupil be subject to her spouse and teacher so that she pays constant and careful attention to His words. For this is the arrangement of a well-governed house. The wife obeys the husband's authority. This is the plan of a well-ordered school, that there the teaching of the schoolmaster alone should be heard. For this reason the Church should not be wise of itself, should not devise anything of itself but should set the limit of its own wisdom where Christ has made an end of speaking. In this way the Church will distrust all the devisings of its own reason. But in those things where it rests upon God's Word the Church will not waiver with any distrust or doubting but will repose in great assurance and firm constancy." Now we have come here this evening to discuss sola Scriptura. Well, what does that mean? Well, first, I'd like to start with the negatives, what it doesn't mean, because I've discovered there's a lot of confusion about what it does mean. Let me tell you some of the things it doesn't mean. First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. It is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. In John 21:25 we read that if everything that Jesus said or did had been recorded that the world itself would not be large enough to contain the books that would be written, but it does not have to be exhaustive, either, to be the rule of faith for the Church. We don't need to know the color of Matthew's eyes. We don't need to know the menu of each of the apostolic meals of the Lord Jesus by the Sea of Galilee to have a sufficient rule of faith for the Church. Curiosity that goes beyond what God has revealed is not godly.
To be even more specific, how does the doctrine of sola Scriptura, the root of thousands of neo-Christian denominations enrich the Body of Christ, the catholic Church? Are the wide variety of neo-Christian denominations and their respective doctrines part of Gods plan or someone else’s? If it is Gods plan to have many paths leading to him why is the Christian path (with all its variations) the only path? Christ said no man comes to the Father but by Him. Did he mean that literally? Did he mean that only those who have heard his teachings are able to be saved or did he mean that his ministry, death and resurrection opened the gates of Heaven to all people who have his message written on to their hearts be they Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu?
Not it doesn't and James knows that .
all people who have his message written on to their hearts be they Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu?
And just how does a Muslime have Jesus' message written on their heart? And what kind of message did Jesus preach that Muslims, or Hindus for that matter, would be buying into it? I don't think we agree what Jesus' message was.
I think that the implications of theopneustos revelation and inspiration would lead one to the belief that the Bible is sufficient. Unless you are claiming that Church councils are theopneustos also. Or that the Tradition of the Church is theopneustos. Those seem to be secondary accretions (IMO) to the Scripture. I issued the 10 million dollar challenge on the previous thread. Quote a bit of the oral tradition of the early church (1st century would be nice).
I know that's the answer your looking to create; but, I'm not a cut & paste label that your preformatted Catholic lies to frequently asked questions will decieve. (ie the much heralded statement 'Peter was the last to speak before James'). I mean, how long was that thrown about in these threads? I know I've seen it at least twice before.
Your problem is you're trying to corner someone that knows the word of God and has had it performing in his life. When it works in your life, you can't be told 'oh that really means something else' or nonsense like that. I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone with true faith and knowledge of the word cannot be swindled.
Hey, given that ya'll were fed the line that Peter spoke last, then James decided. And that you've been fed some myth about what Jesus spoke in aramaic.. And you have tracts that quote information having nothing to do with presented points.. I've no inclination to believe that you understand our perspective on this either. Sola scriptura doesn't mean what you want it to - and it isn't what we here follow. I know how bad you really want to make it look that way so you can appear to have something to say; but, that's not our problem.
Now this is no more than a restatement of the Protestant tradition. If the Church is to have teaching authority, however, it must first of all have the right to define and interpret Scripture. Otherwise, that will be left to individuals who, as history shows, will produce heresy.
If I could? I believe I did.
sola scriptura leads to universalism. Sola scriptura is the Jell-O doctrine that allows for darn near any interpretation of scripture imaginable. You, and other neo-Christian may make an effort to state that the doctrinal differences are small, nearly inconsequential but the fact remains that sola scriptura is the arch heresy that leads disunity and a subversion of Christ’s Church. As for the non-Christians I mentioned in the previous post, what’s more important, crying out Lord Lord or keeping his commandment?
Talk about a non-sequiter! Tradition is a fabric not a quote. An oral tradition ceases to be an "oral" tradition once it is written down. If you take the view that oral tradition is oral tradition even after it is written down than I will point to the majority of the New Testament as "a bit of oral tradition of the early Church". Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition. It is not implied in scripture. Men who wanted to rebel against Christ and his Church invented it. It is based on an appeal to pride; it is the mother of all modern heresy.
As far as James White is concerned: you can do better than that.
How is it that only neo-Christians have "true faith" and observant Catholics are swindled? It always amazes me that you neo-Christians have no problem warping you selves up in your self assured interpretations of scripture while mocking the decibels of Christ's Church for being obedient to Him.
I'm not trying to corner you I just want you to understand that your neo-Christian traditions are invalid.
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.