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

[OLD REGGIE]

Where does the Bible say the early churches treated Peter in a papal fashion?

I cite the example of Peter settling the circumcision debate in Acts 15.

===========================================================

Let's take a look at Acts 15:

Acts 15:

1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni'cia and Sama'ria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren.

4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.

5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses."

6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;

9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

12 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.

14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,

16 'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up,

18 says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.'

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

20 but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

================================

Note the bold paragraphs:

( 7) After much debate Peter spoke.
(12) After Peter spoke, Barnabus and Paul spoke.
(13) James spoke. (19) James made the Judgment.

Tell us one more time how Peter was treated in Papal fashion.

[SoothingDave]

The Constitution is as inert as the Bible. It just sits there. Men must look at the characters, organize them into words reflecting concepts and objects and imbue them with meaning.

Disagree. The Bible does not "just sit there." It is God-breathed. It is living, active and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Does all that with the cover closed, does it? Or do you have to open it, look at the characters, form words from them, recall the objects and concepts associated with the words? Well?

I understand that we can be assisted, helped, thrust into, pierced, etc. all you said about the Bible. God can lead us to read it, we can gain new insights, we can gain fuller understanding, inspiration can come to us. This does not usually happen with the Constitution and before the "Bible-hater" squad attacks let me make this clear.

But, you and I both know that the Bible does not mediate disputes about its meaning between men or groups of men.

That is my point. The closed Bible does nothing. The open Bible is there for us to read and to (with the Spirit's help) make meaning of. This does nothing to solve the problems created when my "spirit" tells me something contrary to what your "spirit" tells you.

As such it serves as a final authority (primary, in your lingo) only to those who already agree on what it means. Little help to the truly torn or confused.

its official interpreters do.

And how, praytell, should they do this?

Well, with the Constitution there is an elaborate system of courts and appeals which can ultimately be decided by the highest judge around of the Constitution's meaning -- the Supreme Court.

With the Bible, we can start by asking people we trust, family, friends, pastor. You know, the local and domestic Church. If local help is not helpful we can appeal to higher levels, ultimately reaching the pinnacle of the judges of the Bible's meaning -- the magisterium.

And before the next statement is made, let me point out the Supreme Court is not guaranteed an infallibility by God.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I stand fast, your the one on the run and anyone with a half a brain can see your very very weak posts. All you guys can do is attack when the truth is put before you. Wheres your truth?

Yawn. Is this in-depth commentary keeping you from answering any more of the questions? Too busy being Havoc's amen corner?

You answered one question very well. Are you now resting on your laurels? Answer the rest of the questions or criticise the answers to yours given by al. Do something.

Saying "weak" then "very weak" and now "very very weak" is not an argument at all.

If I take two days off, will you be saying "very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very weak" by then?

SD

[RobbyS]

Those you describe as one with a vivid imagination is one who speaks with perfect clarity to me. So who decides between you and me on this matter. But since Scripture does not convince you, who can?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

If I take two days off, will you be saying "very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very weak" by then?

I have to admit that was funny Dave. LOL.

Heres an AMEN for ya, don't want you to feel left out. :)

I'm going to have to hire some one to run my co for me, theres just too much going on here today, Oh well back to work.

BigMack

[pegleg]

Thanks for answering some of my questions. You have stated before that you don’t base your theology on the bible alone however, some of the posters haven’t made that same statement. As you know by know, there is more than one Protestant position on a number of issues. I am a little confused by this response.

If the books of the New Testament are "self-authenticating" through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

To which I will answer "Why did the Fathers get it wrong?" If Irenaeus and Jerome are so authoritative, why didn't they get it right for us? If the RCC existed from the beginning, why did they have a hard time establishing a Canon? Surely their hierarchy was fully developed and they could have dealt easily with such a problem.

What did the fathers get wrong? The Church councils did get it right if you accept the NT canon as I know you do. There were a number of false gospels and letters in circulation at that time that were causing confusion. The Church decided to eliminate the confusion by settling the canon. And since this was a council, you could expect discussion and debate. As I have posted before, II Peter was one of the books that made it in that was hotly debated. The book of Revelation was another example of this. And on a side note, I have always wondered how the letter to Philemon made it.

[OLD REGGIE]

I was asking because you rejected Paul's "personal opinion" about women, his misogyny, interjected in the middle of an otherwise inspired epistle. You further stated that you don't see a problem with women pastors or preachers. I was asking if Jesus appointed any women apostles, as they were the leaders of the Church.

Do you think Jesus erred in not placing women in positions of authority?
------------------------------------------------------------

No, I don't think Jesus erred. I think his choice of men (some married btw) was just a product of his times. I will not even claim that Jesus would chose women today, but I believe he would.

As for Paul. what do you think his personal attitude towards women and marriage was. To his credit, he distinguished between his opinions and thoughts as opposed to what would be binding.

Did I publish this before. If I did, forgive me, I am OLD. It is instructive however.

1Cor.7 ( My comments are italicized)

[1] Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
(Is this Scripture?)

[2] But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
[3] The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.<>BR> [4] For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
[5] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
[6] I say this by way of concession, not of command.
(Oh! It isn't Scripture)

[7] I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
(I wish)

[8]To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
[9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
[10]To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
(Now he is speaking for the Lord.)

[11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
[12]To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
(Paul says; not the Lord says)

[13] If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.
[15] But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
[16] Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?
[17]Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
[18] Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.
[19] For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
[20] Every one should remain in the state in which he was called.
[21] Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.
[22] For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.
[23] You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
[24] So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.
[25]Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
(Paul is careful to state his opinion.)

[26] I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.
(I think)

[27] Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
[28] But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
[29] I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,
[30] and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods,
[31] and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away.
[32]I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36]If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry -- it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
[39]A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
[40] But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.
(my judgment)
--------------------------------------------

Do you have any question when Paul was speaking for himself and when he was speaking for the Lord?
=============================================

[pegleg]

Tell us one more time how Peter was treated in Papal fashion.

Another topic that has been discussed here and which our interpretations differ. It was Peter who ended the debate and when James was speaking all he did was restate what Peter had already proclaimed. With that in mind, I haven’t seen anybody answer this question yet. I would be interested in your response.

15) Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

[al_c]

Answer the rest of the questions or criticise the answers to yours given by al.

Hey ... leave me out of this. I'm just lurking today.

[pegleg]

No they don't. They claim to get their doctrines directly from the HS or, as an alternative, that the Bible interprets itself.

Of all the questions I posted this is the one that interests me the most. It will be interesting to see responses to it.

[SoothingDave]

No, I don't think Jesus erred. I think his choice of men (some married btw) was just a product of his times. I will not even claim that Jesus would chose women today, but I believe he would.

See, I just can't buy this. In every other field He was unafraid to give offense. He ate with the tax collectors and the prostitutes. He called the Pharisees on the carpet. But the times He lived in prevented Him from calling women into Apostlehood. I don't buy that Jesus was afraid of giving offense to the sentiments of the time.

Jesus didn't select women to be apostles because men adn women are differnt and have different callings. It just is.

As for Paul. what do you think his personal attitude towards women and marriage was. To his credit, he distinguished between his opinions and thoughts as opposed to what would be binding.

Did I publish this before. If I did, forgive me, I am OLD. It is instructive however.

I don't recall seeing it before.

[1] Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.

(Is this Scripture?)

I think you need another word to use besides "Scripture." Yes, it is Scripture, it is written in our Holy Book.

Generally speaking though, outside of marriage it is not well for a man to touch a woman. I think this is what Paul is saying.

[2] But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Yeah, that's what I just said.

[9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

Anyone else find it amusing that Paul prescribes "marriage" as an apparent antidote to "passion" LOL

(REGGIE, I see what you are saying about Paul breaking up his comments and suggestions from direct commands from God. In this section I will grant that to you, but I would be wary of overdoing it. )

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Sola scriptura means "scripture alone." I see you are rejecting the central dogma of the Reformation. Congratulations. Perhaps you can convince some of your Protestant colleagues.

===========================================================

What makes you think you are the authority to determine what Sola Scriptura means to anyone but yourself?

You can break a stone with repeated blows of a hammer but you can't make a truth out of repeated false statements. If you can read, I have already posted more than one definition on this forum. Definitions, btw, which are accepted by most reasonable people.

[conservonator]

Hi!

Just thought I’d like to point out that there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura in practice. Though many neo-Christians believe that they adhere to the doctrine of “Bible Alone “ in their life with or search for Christ, the fact is that the vast majority of neo-Christians employ much tradition based practices in their particular denominations form of worship and ritual. Evidence? Sure, how about the concept of the Trinity? Not in the Bible. The use of a ring as a symbol of marriage? Not in the Bible. Church on Sunday? Not in the bible. Reliance on Scripture alone? Not in the Bible. Woman priests? Not in the Bible. I could go on, but you get the point.

The point of debate should not be whether Scripture is the sole rule of faith but what reasons, if any, compels one to reject centuries of Holy Tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit in favor of the anti Biblical, not extra Biblical, notion of Scripture alone.

[SoothingDave]

"Sola Scriptura" does literally mean "Scripture alone." As a battle cry against a monolithic Church it made sense (supposedly) along with the other famous Solas (fides et gratia).

As an accurate term to reflect much of contemporary Protestant thought it needs to be nuanced a bit, as your quoted definitions and those of 808bass have done.

Scripture is not the "only" thing used to form the Christian mind today, in this sense "sola" doesn't make sense.

Scripture is the ultimate (or primary) authority argued to. Authority of the local church, etc. exists but is secondary to that of Scripture. Does that qualify as "Sola"?

I think so. There are different levels of authority but as the primary Scripture stands alone. Sola. Scriptura.

SD

[ThomasMore]

"anyone with a half a brain can see your very very weak posts"

I'm not back, just lurking.

After reading your (PNAMBC) repetitive (unchanging) diatribe I realize why I stopped posting on these threads. You ask for biblical proofs and then pontificate on how others' opinions are wrong and your's are right. Well, at least you are consistent.  Flame On!!!

[malakhi]

Anyone else find it amusing that Paul prescribes "marriage" as an apparent antidote to "passion" LOL

Well, I'd have to say that having children did the trick for me. ;o)