Posted on 01/18/2002 6:11:04 AM PST by 1stFreedom
Folks, I'm reposting this article, edited so as to not appear to be attacking anybody.
I'd like your opinion, as this is an article in working progress. If you agree, disagree, have facts & figures, I'd appreciate your comments.
I've purposely left out the controversy over the OT beacause 1. I need to do some research, and 2. The focus of this article is on the agreed upon NT cannon. (It's more for discussion of NT amongst different denominations). I'll write another article on the OT, or incorporate it here.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE BIBLE
INTRODUCTION
Many schools of theology contend that the Church had a falling away, or went apostate, not too long after the death of the last Apostle. The approximate date varies, with 100AD for Jehovah Witnesses and 312AD for Calvinists and Mormons.
ERRANT CHURCH
If the Church had indeed fallen away from the faith, then this presents a very serious problem for the Church. The problem is so large it is a showstopper and it calls into question the validity of the faith itself.
The problem is this: If the Church was indeed apostate, then how could anything handled by the Church be trusted? Could any major (not minor) tenant taught or produced by the errant Church be considered valid? If so, then how can the modern Church accept a major tenant from an apostate Church?
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Contrary to the current wide availability of the New Testament, the first believers did not have a copy of the New Testament.
The first Christians had the blessing of hearing the teachings of Christ personally. The apostles carried these teachings to various foreign lands for many years afterwards.
These Christians had no cannon of Scriptures, and in fact, some of the scriptures were being written during this period. (Such as the Epistles, which were letters to the various churches.)
Those who came after the time of the twelve apostles continued to teach the Gospel as well as the writings of the Apostles.
But there were also other writings that were considered to be inspired. One could even go as far as to argue that the Didichae or the Shepard of Hermas could be candidates for consideration of being divinely inspired. The early Church had to determine whether or not various writings were inspired. This didn't happen overnight.
Through the course of time, well after the earliest possible date (100ad) of a supposed apostasy, various writings were examined, tested, debated, and validated/invalidated by the Church.
THE CANNON IS RECOGNIZED
Thee first real recognition of the cannon of the New Testament came in the late 300’s (two synods, one in 382 and one in 392). This recognition is not the absolute “official” cannon, but rather just recognition of the NT cannon of Scripture.
NOTE: The Church rarely puts a stamp of official approval on anything until there is a serious dispute. This is why it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the “official” cannon was “certified” – there was no serious dispute till that time frame (minor disputes? yes). The “unofficial” “official” cannon was recognized for centuries, but only certified at Trent.
THE ACHILLES HEAL OF AN APOSTASY
This formal recognition of the NT Cannon is the problem for believers.
If the Church was in error in the proposed range (100ad-312ad), then how could the errant church be trusted to be correct about the cannon of Scripture? How can one say for certainty that the cannon is correct. Maybe the Didichae belongs in there?
It's an error in logic, a paradox, to say that "An errant Church, misguided and corrupt, produced an infallible cannon of Scripture which is the foundation of the faith for non-Catholic believers."
While it is true that an errant church can teach valid truths, it is not true that an errant church can define the entire faith on which these truths rest.
CONCLUSION
A common reaction to the question of the cannon of the NT is that the Holy Spirit has confirmed it to individuals and the Church. If the Spirit indeed does confirm that the NT cannon is correct, then one has to admit that the either an apostate Church produced an infallible NT cannon (a contradiction) OR, that in fact, the Church wasn't apostate after all.
To reasonable people, the conclusion "that in fact, the church wasn't apostate after all or if it was then the NT cannon and the faith as well is in serious doubt", is inescapable.
-----
Comments??
Apocrypha
------------
Apocalypse of Peter (c. 130)
Protoevangelium of James (c. 150)
Acts of Paul and Thecla (c. 180)
Gospel of Peter (c. 190) [DOCETIC]
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (c. 192)
[EBIONITIC] Acts of Peter and Paul (c. 200)
Gospel of Thomas (c. 200) [GNOSTIC]
Acts of Thomas (c. 240) [GNOSTIC]
Acts of Thaddaeus (c. 250)
Acts of Andrew (c. 260) [GNOSTIC]
Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena (c. 270)
Apocalypse of Moses (unknown date) [JUDAISTIC]
Apocalypse of Esdras (unknown date) [JUDAISTIC]
Testament of Abraham (unknown date) [JUDAISTIC]
Narrative of Zosimus (unknown date)
Gospel of the Nativity of Mary (unknown date; late)
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea (unknown date; late)
Report of Pontius Pilate (unknown date; late) -- First Greek and Second Greek forms
Letter of Pontius Pilate (unknown date; late)
Giving Up of Pontius Pilate (unknown date; late)
Death of Pilate (unknown date; late)
Sorry, not true; you're either being dishonest, or someone's not been honest with you. This is like a Christian denying that he believes that Jesus is God incarnate. The Roman Catholic is not free to see in Scripture anything at variance with The Magisterium's dictates. If he does, he's not a loyal Roman Catholic.You are changing the words I disagreed with and then calling me a liar for disagreeing with your revision -- something I haven’t even addressed yet. Your first words (post 33):
To a Roman Catholic, it [What if Jesus says it?] would mean nothing — until some man told him what he was required to believe that it meant.Once that is denied, as you know it will be, you revise that to say
The Roman Catholic is not free to see in Scripture anything at variance with The Magisterium's dictates.Very clever, but not something that allows you to call me dishonest. I agree, that once the Magisterium has formally pronounced an infallible truth, a Catholic is to accept that truth. I do not agree that a Catholic thinks Jesus’ words mean nothing until some man says it means XYZ. I know you see the difference, since you penned your little verbal trap in an effort to paint me as dishonest, but I will explain it anyway. The first requires us to view it as nothing before the Magisterium acts, which is not true. The second requires us to agree with the Magisterium after it formally acts, which is true.
In the original statement, you claim we think the Jesus’ words mean nothing until some man says we are required to believe it means XYZ. So far as I know, the Magisterium has never said we are required to believe anything in particular about Matthew 10:1-6 (just an example, since we believe the entire Bible to be from God numerous verses could substitute.):
Matthew 10If your first statement were true, then, I would take these words to mean nothing, as the Church has not said I am required to believe anything about them. Numerous Bishops and Popes may have referred to this passage, but so far as I am aware, there are no articles of faith that require anything of me on it. So according to your first statement, I take it to mean nothing. That is simply false, it is the Word of God, and a single syllable of it is far more important then I am.
1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.
2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother;
3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,
6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Now your second statement is that I am not free to see it contrary to the “Magisterium's dictates.” As you are aware, a Church teaching is only a Magisterial dictate, as you call it, if it is formally pronounced by a Pope or a Council. Very few things qualify. Mere statements from a Pope or Bishop don’t. So, to that extent, this last statement is more accurate. I am not free to disagree with a formal Magisterial pronouncement. For example, when the Bible says ”He died for all” this has been interpreted to mean that He died for all (some stretch there) and that we are not free to claim He only died for some of us.
It is simply false, however, to claim that we see the Word as nothing until we are told what to think of it. We are to agree with formal definitions. Your accusation of dishonesty is nothing if not dishonest.
This is not a secret item, P. You don't have to have the club ring to know it. I will never understand why you people dissemble about your beliefs, and try to smear those who simply repeat them. If your sect's tenets embarrass you, LEAVE IT. But be honest about those tenets.OK, lets be honest. Show me the Church teaching that claims to “a Roman Catholic, it [What if Jesus says it?] would mean nothing — until some man told him what he was required to believe that it meant.” Show me where it says we think Scripture means nothing until the Magisterium formally defines what it means. Be honest indeed.
patent +AMDG
LOL.
Then you say, "Well... Clinton sucks."Agreed.And I say, "You got that right, bud!"
And we leave arm in arm.
Really? Which church gave us the Scriptures containing (just to use 1 example) the 10 commandments?
Conversely, does Christmas contradict the Bible? You might quibble (justifiably) about teaching kids about Santa Claus, but I think the answer is no.
So the issue for us Protestant types is not demanding that everything have a verse of Scripture to back it up, but rather that no doctrine of Christianity contradict either the word or the spirit of Scripture.
So with that in mind, let's look at a few of the issues that divide us. Just for a starting glance, let's look at the enforced celibacy of priests. The RCC says that all priests must remain unmarried and celibate all their lives, citing 1 Cor. 7:25-26, in which Paul says that it is "good" for virgins to remain so. However, in this same passage, Paul says that he has "no command from the Lord"--in other words, he's giving advice, not laying down a doctrine of perpetual virginity for all believers.
There is a passage in which Paul speaks directly to the marital status (among other things) of bishops and deacons, 1 Timothy chapter 3. In it, he assumes that many bishops will be married and have children, and insists only that they have but one wife (v. 2), and that their children be obediant and respectful (vv. 4-5). Now, if the Apostle, taught not by men but directly by God (Gal. 1:1 and 12) applauds marraige and children in the bishops of the Church, by what right does Rome demand celibacy? Rome has not simply added a tradition to the Holy Scriptures, she has declared herself to be greater than the original Apostles and able to ignore what they taught!
The standard Catholic answer to this (indeed, to any point of contention between the RCC and the protestant members of the Church) is not to deal with the issue, or to admit that Paul did indeed allow bishops and deacons to be married, but to attack a strawman, accusing people like myself of "wanting to be our own popes" and trying to rip apart a false idea of what sola scriptura is.
Indeed, we can see this imbalance of placing the RCC's teachings above Scripture in even so important and central a doctrine as the very doctrine of salvation itself. The Catholic often "bashes" the Protestant for believing that faith in Christ alone will get a person into Heaven. "The only time 'faith alone' appears in the Bible," he or she will say, "is when James (2:24) says that it is 'not by faith alone.'"
Well, if this is truly what James meant, then we truly do, as some outside the faith hold, have a battle of wills between Paul and James in the early Church. For Paul wrote, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16).
Indeed, Christ Himself stated that it is the centrality of belief in Him that saves, not deeds: "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Indeed, Christ gave that gift to a dying thief that had no chance to do any good deed in his life, no chance to take the Eucharist, to receive baptism, to atone for his many sins. "I tell you the truth, this day you will be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:43, which also disproves Purgatory, by the way).
No wonder, then, that Paul wrote, "[This is] the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:8-9).
Indeed, Paul spent a great part of his ministry (and several letters) fighting against a similiar false teaching to that of modern-day Rome's. But where Rome says, "Yes, you need to believe in Jesus, but you also need to go to Mass, take the Eucharist, go to confession, etc.," the early Judaizers, with far more Scriptural justification, said, "Unless you are circumcized, according to the tradition taught by Moses, you cannot be saved," (Acts 15:1).
The Council of Jerusalem rejected this belief. The Apostle Peter argued:
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.James agreed, and a letter was sent out releasing Gentile believers from the Jewish Law. Indeed, Paul later wrote, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:4).
Does this mean that we who are saved by faith need never do any good? "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!" (Rom. 6:1-2). In fact, Paul explained perfectly the proper position of faith and deeds when he wrote, "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (Gal. 5:6).
Let's put it another way. If you are using your deeds, whether charity or love or the Eucharist or confession or whatever, in any way as the cause of your salvation, you are not saved. But if your faith in Christ alone is the cause of your salvation, then good works will be the natural effect of that faith. This is precisely what James meant when he wrote, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. . . Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do" (2:17, 18).
Martin Luther, who every Catholic would be good to read before they vilify and make fun of him, said in the introduction to his commentary on Romans:
Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn't ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn't do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn't know what faith or good works are. Even so, he chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works.The Bible then, clearly states that it is faith and grace alone which save us, without any works of the law. It does teach that good works are the natural effect of a living faith, and that the faith of a man who claims Christ without showing it in his outward deeds is dead and useless, a vine without fruit. Therefore, the Protestant, working from sola scriptura states, "I believe in Christ, and therefore I am saved, and will be with Christ the very day I die. My good deeds come from the gratitude of this assured salvation, to glorify God."
The RCC, on the other hand says, "Well, you might, but we're the best way to make sure. Even then, you can't know, and you'll probably spend time in Purgatory. So you need this and that deed and indulgence to reduce your time in Purgatory, assuming that you don't lose your salvation by committing the wrong sin . . ."
Regarding Purgatory, the RCC, according to the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject, teaches, "The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is it times not wholly paid in this life."
Yet Jesus said on the Cross, "Tetelestai." This Greek word was stamped on the papers of prisoners released from prison, and meant literally, "Paid in full." That is, their debt for their crimes was paid in full. Thus Paul wrote:
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.There is no room for Purgatory in the faith taught by the Apostles. Even 1 Cor. 3:13-15 talks of the testing of the believer's works, burning up the straw and dross so that that which is truly gold in God's sight might be revealed, not the "purging" of the believer himself. And again, to the theif beside Him, who certainly died without having time to confess all his sins and do pennance for them, did Christ say, "You will be purged for many centuries in fire, but then will be allowed into My Kingdom"? Or did He instead say, "I tell you the truth, this very day you will be with me in Paradise"?
--Col. 1:21-23
And lest one claim that the Church "has always taught about Purgatory," I have of late been reading the ante-Nicean Early Church Fathers, and I have yet to find one that so taught. That's not to say that an obscure reference could not be found, but the ECF of the first three centuries don't seem to be aware of Purgatory, which suggests that it was a later invention, not the original teaching of the Apostles.
I know that I've waxed a bit long here, but I figured that the "Protestant bashers" here deserved a reasoned answer. I believe in the Scriptures above all else because they have perfectly preserved the teachings of the prophets, of Christ, and of the Apostles after Him for two millennia. Conversely, in Catholic tradition I see changing doctrines and direct contradictions to the Word which we both know and agree to be true. Since we know the Bible to be true, it would seem to me only right and logical to be as the Bereans, and put all else to the test of the Scriptures to see if what we are taught in our churches is true (Acts 18:11).
Yours in Truth,
Anyone who does not fall in line with Fundamentalist Christian biblical interpretation gets their opinions labeled as such. What's new!
That you don't like what I say is irrelevant to its truth-content.
I've read your posts. I'm neutral to what you say. It has some truth but is lacking any substantial evidence. You condemn the entire post apostolic church as being apostate through your opinion. What documented proof do you have supporting your interpretation of the Bible as being the constant interpretation held by the Body of Christ?
Can you cite any post apostolic documents supporting your claims?
Michele, you really should read all of the Bible; provided it isn't one of those abridged, edited Protestant versions.
John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written."
1 Corinthians 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you."
2 Thessaloninas 2:14 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
2 Thessalonians 3:6 "And we charge you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us."
By the way, how is your enlightenment, with regard to all those Protestant pedophiles I told you about last week, progressing?
The approximate date varies, with 100AD for Jehovah Witnesses and 312AD for Calvinists and Mormons.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons is a nick name and we would rather it not be used) belives that the apostacy was a gradual process and do not attach any specific date to when the original church went apostate. You might want to read 'The Great Apostacy' (check a local LDS bookstore) for a detailed arguemnt that an apostacy took place.
Two: If the Spirit indeed does confirm that the NT cannon is correct, then one has to admit that the either an apostate Church produced an infallible NT cannon (a contradiction) OR, that in fact, the Church wasn't apostate after all.
Those are not the only possible conclusions. You could also consider the possibility that the apostate church composed an tainted NT that is mostly as it was originaly, but not completely like what the apostles wrote, so it still contains much of God's word, but is not perfect (leading to much contention and disagrement among Christians for 2000 years).
I can't answer for Jw's or Calvinists, but for the LDS, our church came to be because Joseph Smith, a 14 year old farm boy in 1820 didn't know what church to join. He went off and prayed in private to God to ask Him, and was answered with a revelation telling him that there had been an apostacy and that he was called of God to restore the true church and authority of God to the earth. There was no political motive and Joseph gave his life and died a martyr.
We belive that the Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with an ancient american civilization. It's purpose is to provide a second witness of the truths contained in the Bible, not to replace it. We consider all who belive Christ is the Son of God and desire to follow Him are Christians, no matter how much they may disagree with us on other issues. (I wish all other Christians felt that same way, but I expect you'll soon see some don't)
The scriptural supports the Latins adduce (from books dropped from the canon by Luther who perferred the judgement of the Christ-denying rabbis who shortenned the Jewish canon to the judgement of the pre-Christian Jews of Alexandria and of the ancient and undivided Church) for this innovation all indeed support the usefulness of prayer on behalf of the departed. They do not, however, support the Latin doctrine of purgatory. In the East we pray for the dead to provide aid to them in the particular judgement (usually presented in the image of "the Tollhouses"), as a comfort even to those confined in hell, and in solidarity with those in blessedness.
By the way: the canon was officially fixed by the Fourth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, whose canons incorporate those of local councils which fixed the canon for local churches by reference. For the Latins Trent reiterated what was already part of the universal patrimony of all Christians--though their eccleiological theory fixes the canon on the basis of papal assent to the local councils, rather than the actions of the Holy Ecumenical Councils. (The Monophysites who rejected both councils also have the same canon, except for the Ethiopians who consider the Shepherd of Hermas, and I believe the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistles of Pope Clement as canonical.)
You sound so reasonable, I wonder why you have to include this piece of nonsense. You ask for us to consider your reasoned response to our "Protestant bashing" but you dismiss our response as hand waving and strawman attacking.
The issue and the standard Catholic response is that the Church is given rein to handle her own affairs. The position of whether priests can marry or not is a matter for the Church to decide. There is no great thrological question, the position is not infallible or etched in stone. It is simply a decision the Church has made on how to deal with her own priests.
The "requirements" Paul gives would be understood as minimal requirements by most. The indication of "one wife," is a limit against polygymy, not a compulsion to marriage. That his children be well behaved is a indication that he is respected and able to manage a household.
Who would want a man who can't even rule his children to rule the Church? It is foolishness. Would you point to this Scripture to deny a childless man a position? If man and his wife have an infertility problem and can not bear children, you would use the Bible to prohibit this man from being a Bishop?
SD
You made a good point. I wasn't so much mistaken, though, as misstated. A better way, perhaps, would have been to say that to the Roman Catholic the jury is (necessarily) out on what Jesus meant until the Magisterium ruled. For instance, a Roman Catholic living centuries ago might have read "until" and "firstborn" in Matthew 1:25, then "brothers and sisters" in Matthew 13:55 and 56, and then read 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, and take it as given that Mary and Joseph had a godly marriage which produced various half-brothers and half-sisters to the Lord Jesus. And then the Magisterium comes along and rules that, no, nothing of what he thought he saw in Scripture is as he thought he saw it, and so forth. So then as a loyal RC, he'd change his understanding of all those passages.
The jury had been out. Now it was in. He hadn't really known what the words meant, until the RCC ruled on it.
That seems plain to me. But you're going to want to argue with it, aren't you? Sigh.
Well, in sum: you're right, my words were poorly-chosen. To the RC, the words mean something. He just doesn't know what they mean, for sure, until the Magisterium orders him what to think about them.
Dan
So with that in mind, let's look at a few of the issues that divide us. Just for a starting glance, let's look at the enforced celibacy of priests. The RCC says that all priests must remain unmarried and celibate all their lives, citing 1 Cor. 7:25-26, in which Paul says that it is "good" for virgins to remain so. However, in this same passage, Paul says that he has "no command from the Lord"--in other words, he's giving advice, not laying down a doctrine of perpetual virginity for all believers.You violate your own rules. He may assume Bishops can be married, and the Church agrees that it could change and allow that. He does not, however, teach that a Bishop must be married or must be allowed to marry by his superiors. Nor, does he applaud married Bishops. He only refers to rules for when they are. Different things.There is a passage in which Paul speaks directly to the marital status (among other things) of bishops and deacons, 1 Timothy chapter 3. In it, he assumes that many bishops will be married and have children, and insists only that they have but one wife (v. 2), and that their children be obediant and respectful (vv. 4-5). Now, if the Apostle, taught not by men but directly by God (Gal. 1:1 and 12) applauds marraige and children in the bishops of the Church, by what right does Rome demand celibacy? Rome has not simply added a tradition to the Holy Scriptures, she has declared herself to be greater than the original Apostles and able to ignore what they taught!
Well, if this is truly what James meant, then we truly do, as some outside the faith hold, have a battle of wills between Paul and James in the early Church. For Paul wrote, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16).Couple things, works of the law =OT, no? And the statement that faith without works is dead. They are the same thing, if you have true faith you obey Christ and do His commands, the works. If you have a false faith, if you carelessly rely on faith alone, but ignore the works, your faith is dead, and this is the faith alone that you are not justified by.
the early Judaizers, with far more Scriptural justification, said, "Unless you are circumcized, according to the tradition taught by Moses, you cannot be saved," (Acts 15:1). The Council of Jerusalem rejected this belief. The Apostle Peter argued:Again, OT traditions, not the same thing. We could not be made perfect by the OT law, the OT works. We are made perfect by Christ and His Sacrifice, along with the Grace poured out into this world through His action and His traditions. The OT justification teachings were perfected, and thus no longer relevant, in the Sacrifice.
Therefore, the Protestant, working from sola scriptura states, "I believe in Christ, and therefore I am saved, and will be with Christ the very day I die.Matthew 25
Yet Jesus said on the Cross, "Tetelestai." This Greek word was stamped on the papers of prisoners released from prison, and meant literally, "Paid in full." That is, their debt for their crimes was paid in full.If paid in full, why do we need faith? If paid in full, why are not all saved, for as Scripture says, He died for all! You’re leaving out a couple other verses from Paul, e.g.,
Colossians 1These verses need to be read together.
22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him,
23 provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,
God bless you,
patent
I don't see where it says it all happened in a year, I think the years cited are reffered to as the point where the apostacy became complete.
As I read the NT, it seems very much to me that the apostles were constantly running around fighting off apostate ideas and practices all over the place, and I can easily belive that without them the individual congregations would stray farther and farther.
In WW2, there were several congregations of my church in Europe that were unable to communicate with church leaders outside their area for only a couple of years, but in that time they all kinds of false doctrine started being taught and accepted.
To the RC, the words mean something. He just doesn't know what they mean, for sure, until the Magisterium orders him what to think about them.This is very close, yes. I would think that there are plenty of Catholics who do operate this way. My personal understanding is a little different, in that you can believe you understand what they mean, you can be sure. If the Magisterium rules differently though, you are called to accept their teaching. That is you can be personally as sure as a Protestant would be about a passage, but if you are proven wrong you must accept it with humility.
God bless,
patent +AMDG
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.