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
Lie down and put on a cold compress. It'll pass. ;-)
In the last installment, you were agreeing with my attempt to define and probe the usefulness of the term Sola Scriptura. Don't take that to mean that I agree with the concept, just that I can define it reasonably well.
I relize that that is a bold departure for many here (not you personally), but I do try to understand the things I am arguing against.
SD
12) 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.
13)If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted, and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, then why are there over 20,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?
13) Because the Holy Spirit is individual in each of us, and not one size fits all. Even though there are many Churches, do you think that is a problem for God. He sees our hearts and not what building we are in. Do you think he cares if we all walk around in little uniforms, and in lock step with each other? How many of those who God chose in the past were members of the crowd? When we pray to him, do you think he is noticing whether or not we are Catholic or Protestant or does he go by the content of our prayers? I think all Catholics who will be honest, have beliefs that are not RCC approved, and they simply do not challenge the subject. Such as my debate with SD over whether or not Peter was crucified up side down, or whether he died of old age and it wasn’t even recorded. The debate was clearly a win for scripture, and even though he failed to acknowledge it, he has to know in his heart that his Church has taken the wrong stand on this subject, but he will simply chuck it away, and it will go no further.
Too bad baseball and soccer are winding down ... I could go to those games for under $10!
14) Catholics see differences as contradictions and confusion, but it is only such if you have spent your whole life marching in a different step. In the military boot camp, we had those we always referred to as the 10% who didn’t get the word, they were the ones who’s head was always bobbing up and down in contrast of the other marchers going down and up, and they were always getting their heels stepped on, but do you think God is interested in who is in or out of step with the other religions?
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?
15) We can not judge another religion by our standards, we can disagree, but we can’t judge and condemn them because we can only see them through the eyes of a human, and God will judge us by those same standards we have chosen if we continue to do so, and we can not expect to bind anyone to our standards. This goes especially for authority to preach his word.Churches who claim to be the bastions of truth, and the only ones that God has given
Dream on. What you were supposed to say in this case, in answer to the question, in order to sound reasonable, was that even though you and I disagreed on this interpretation of Scripture it is not something pertaining to Salvation. Therefore it is not essential that either of us accept the interpretation of the other. If I felt it was so important that Peter was martyred then you would have to allow me to start a new church which teaches this as true, while allowing the existing church we were in to teach differently.
This is how denominations get started, over trivial things which do not matter in the long run, in salvation terms. Hence the number of denominations is irrelevant.
That's how you should have answered the question. But you had to take another swipe at my devilish interpretation and your angelic "just plain reading."
SD
Too bad baseball and soccer are winding down ... I could go to those games for under $10!
But you get what you pay for. Now that we have new football and baseball stadia, and now that Super Mario has rescued the franchise again, how can we not build a new arena? It's only fair. And a hockey rink gets more use for concerts and events than a football stadium. There's lots of 15,000 seat rock bands and not a lot 70,000 ones.
SD
16) 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, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Anyone who looks at the laws that were made prior to the reformation and after, will see that at least 98% of these doctrine were developed in the years that they had no accountability to anyone but themselves. The teachings were getting farther and farther away from the Bible, and more and more on the trust in man. I also believe that any honest Catholic will admit at least to him self, that had it not been for the revolution, the Catholic Church would have become so corrupt that God may have had to destroy it all together or it would have self destructed of it’s own weight. As it worked out, he had compassion because of all the innocent and sincere people and allowed it to continue since it was forced to change it’s ways, even though it did retain many of the same traits that brought it down to it’s lowest point.
17) How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?
17) 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.
18) If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?
18) You ask why does the Bible it self say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. 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. This is the only explanation of why it can not be destroyed. Rome destroyed the Jewish temple, but he nor Hitler could destroy Judaism, only the buildings that represented them. Christianity as Judaism is a faith, and nothing can destroy it.
So have you already got your little catch phrases lined up for every response?
I thought you were just lurking. :)
BigMack
This pattern was followed by the Ecumenical Councils, which (with one exception) were not even attended by the Popes of Rome (and in the exceptional case, the Pope was constrained to attend by the Emperor), and is still the pattern followed in the East.
Thank you for acknowledging that the differences between them are small and inconsequential, and I always thought you felt there were big doctrinal differrences.
18) You ask why does the Bible it self say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. 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.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back it up. I think most Catholics can understand that sometimes "the Church" refers to a building and sometimes it refers to an organization or a group of people. I'm not sure what a "spiritual state of mind" means, but I would like it if you stopped acting like all Catholics (except we paid agitators, of course) are total morons.
This is the only explanation of why it can not be destroyed. Rome destroyed the Jewish temple, but he nor Hitler could destroy Judaism, only the buildings that represented them. Christianity as Judaism is a faith, and nothing can destroy it.
OK, that was nice. The Church is based on Christ, the cornerstone, ok, doesn't exist physically, ok, is a state of mind in the believers, ok, is a faith, ok.
Very nice. Except you didn't answer the question. You answered "How can the Church can be the pillar and foundation of truth?" and answered "Because it's based on Jesus."
That's nice. But the question is "If the Bible (Sola Scriptura) is the ultimate rule of faith, why does the Bible call the Church the foundation and pillar of truth?" You would think the Bible would call itself the pillar and foundation of truth.
SD
I'm sorry you misunderstood. I was answering that question as if I were a Protestant. You see, we have been at this long enough that I can give a reasonable argument for either side. To freely choose which truth to believe we must have some understanding beyond caricature of what the other side believes.
SD
Hahaha. I think you missed SuperDave's point.
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,
I agree that the HS is pure truth. So how can it follow that people that come to different conclusions aren’t right or wrong, only different? The HS cannot lead anybody to something that is not true, so would you agree the conclusions should be the same by those being lead by the HS?
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.
Your example does not answer the question of where Jesus give instructions about the Christian faith based exclusively on a book and the rest of your answer is as you described, your personal understanding.
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.
So you acknowledge that Christ never instructed the Apostles to write anything.
Paul told the Church at Corinth that that the letters which they had read to them , were the same as them being there in person, and when he said” we” it referred only to the known apostles and approved apostles, and no one else.
However Paul, nor any of the Apostles ever said their faith will be based on what they are writing them or what would eventually be known as the NT.
The weaker argument would be one of protocol. Since the meeting was held in Jerusalem, it was to James to close the proceedings, as he would preside within his territory.
SD
I will agree that James confirmed what Peter decided since he was the local Bishop. However, I cannot agree that is was James who made the decision since when Peter spoke, the debate ended.
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.