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
Thanks for post C.
Please take note PNAMBC!
Don't you see, allend? No one can determine what Sola Scriptura means to anyone but himself. But Sola Scriptura itself does not mean that one determines the meaning of scripture strictly on the basis of personal interpretation.
So you're saying that if no one reads the Bible, then it's not inspired...
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.
Not a totally unfair answer, but of course I disagree with that last little bit. In informal arguments about the Constitution, one would expect to appeal to the framers other writings, the social milieu in which it developed, the problems it was addressing. So my point was merely that one should expect to see much the same things when arguing the meaning of a passage of Scripture, other writings of the authors, the social milieu, the problems it was addressing, etc. I think many arguments can be solved by doing a good job of the above. And just because someone doesn't agree with the argument does not negate that argument. Someone will have the better argument and the other will not.
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. Dictionary definitions do not form theology (see the synonym for venerate to understand).
| Click on the Collegiate Dictionary tab to look up the current word in the dictionary. One entry found for venerate. Function: verb Text: Synonyms REVERE, adore, reverence, worship Related Word honor; idolize Idioms put on a pedestal |
If you would like to play dictionary games to form theology, then let me lead the way.
If no one eats the doughnut, is it still full of creamy goodness?
If a tree falls in the forest...
I am saying that God can certainly lead us to read the Bible and we can be brought to its truths in non-conventional ways. But the inspiration or not of the Bible is moot if nobody reads it.
Not a totally unfair answer, but of course I disagree with that last little bit. In informal arguments about the Constitution, one would expect to appeal to the framers other writings, the social milieu in which it developed, the problems it was addressing. So my point was merely that one should expect to see much the same things when arguing the meaning of a passage of Scripture, other writings of the authors, the social milieu, the problems it was addressing, etc. I think many arguments can be solved by doing a good job of the above. And just because someone doesn't agree with the argument does not negate that argument. Someone will have the better argument and the other will not.
These types of thing would indeed make excellent arguments about the meaning of Scripture. Assuming both parties agree on the source materials. (Which is the usual bugaboo. We Catholics being congenital liars and such.) You are indeed right, many arguments should be able to be settled with such material. I never meant to say that one should rely solely on the word of the competent authority.
SD
I agree that the tenor of the discussion would be improved if we would all understood that our replies are implicitly prefaced by words such as "In my opinion..." or "It is my belief that..." or "My interpretation of this passage is..." It is presumptuous to assume that MY reading of scripture is the literal Word of God, and that YOURS is merely a false interpretation. The fact is that WE ALL bring our own "traditions" and prejudices to our reading of scripture. The Bible just sits there, a Kantian "thing-in-itself". What we perceive in scripture is always an interpretation.
Not according to the literal definition, yes.
I believe both Irenaeus and Jerome only had 22 books in their NT canon. Obviously, that is before the council had ruled authoritatively on the subject. I was just pointing out that the confusion appeared to exist within the RCC and that was not necessarily a strong argument for you.
Then if there is no strict adherence to the doctrine of Scripture Alone, on what authority do neo-Christians deny the validity of Holy Tradition?
If you're funny, I won't complain every time you post. That was good.
Probably because the doctrine is not defined by its literal definition.
Wasn't Kant a philosopher? Uh oh. ;-)
On a lighter note, tonight at 8 the long three month wait is over. Hockey season returns with the mighty 'guins of Pittsburgh taking on the relocated Quebec franchise.
Ahh, hockey. The purest of all the major sports, largely untainted by attention or popularity, it remains the world's true sport.
Combining the grace and flow of the Europeans with the all-NorthAmerican violence we hold so dear (unpuncuated by "committee meetings" as George Will once quipped about football); the brutal honesty of the hip check with the majesty of the well-placed shot and better-placed glove hand; hockey reigns as the honest expression of desire, tension, release, and, like a fine bottle of ketchup, anticipation.
From the Indian Summer nights, through Alberta in February, to the late June final seconds, no other sport requires the grinding determination and marathon of stamina required to hoist the world's only universally respected symbol of championship, the Stanley Cup.
As "Badger" Bob Johnson, R.I.P., the man virtually synonymous with American hockey used to say every day: "It's a great day for hockey!"
SD
You are under the impression, perhaps, that Popes do not listen to advice or do not deserve to be rebuked when they are acting hypocritically? Let me disabuse you of that notion. Peter had already decided the issue of the Jews and Gentiles and was not living up to his decision. Paul rightly calls him to account for this. It doesn't make Peter not the Pope any more than the present Pope listening to the advice of his confessor makes JPII not Pope.
You paranoid Protestants all imagine the Pope as an absolute ruler like Hitler who no man dared to speak against. It's just not that way.
SD
I rarely ever consult a commentary on any doctrinal issues, so what I believe is my personal understanding, and what my Holy Spirit has led me to believe, and because they may vary from others conclusions, that doesn't make either wrong, only different, and that is what makes the Holy Spirit so unique, that it is pure truth from God, but because it is a part of us it reasons using absolute truth, and what we give it to work with humanly, and it makes the best possible decisions based on that.
Is that scriptural? No, just what I have come to believe based on my knowledge and what the Holy Spirit adds to it.
1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
1). Rev 1:11 What thou seest, write in a book,and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia;
Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Of course this deals directly with the book of Revelation, but God knew we weren’t going to have simply one book to represent the new Christian era, so since it deals with the end, it is simple logic that it would be the last book of what ever canon it was put in, and what ever canon God chose to survive is of equal authority.
The book of Revelations is written similar to the old Testament when God would tell his prophets to
Exo 17:14 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book,
Rev 1:11 write in a book,and send it unto the seven churches
This was the same type of wordage used in Revelations so then we can conclude that this book is from God, then it is logical that what ever it references is also truth, and since it warns us of the things happening in the Gospels, such as the warning to the 7 Churches that are known Churches in the district of where the apostles taught and were developed by them into churches, then this gives them validity and connects them directly to God..
2) . 1 Cor 1:13 For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end;
The apostle Paul was approved by the same apostles that were taught by Christ, meaning he had the same authority as they, and since they all represented Christ, it was the same as Christ himself saying it.
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.