Posted on 11/03/2003 9:42:20 PM PST by RnMomof7
Because it is not all of the bishops in the world. Not even all of the bishops in the US are buffoons.
The branch which is dying is the offshoot of hippy-dippy "progressivism." We've all seen it is a dead end. The Tree is tall and strong and, as I noted, exists not just in those alive today, but in history.
How can you be sure the "revelation " that provided tradition is anymore reliable than God speaking to you through scripture?
Because even Scripture attests to the Church. And of course, the New Testament itself is a product of this "Tradition."
My point is their are 2 sides to that coin when you tar protestants with private interpretation.
Yes, I must decide for myself whether to follow the Church or not. But beyond that, there is no belief in nor need for private revelation of everything. God has worked through men all these years to bring understanding and wisdom. To me, casting all of that aside as "tradition" and insisting that God reveal all understanding to me personally is to fully misunderstand how God has chosen to interact in the world.
And of course, one need only examine the fruits of this belief in private interpretation to realize it's an incorrect path.
SD
But you ignore the examples he gives. And you ignore what he's saying (contextually) with regard to it. And you ingnore the all inclusiveness used. "The flesh" excludes nothing. You're standing that on it's head as if it's a dodge. It isn't. Nor can it be perverted into one. If he'd said "all flesh" you'd be debating the meaning of the word "all". This is legalism - looking for the technical instead of following the spirit.
Jesus is talking about spiritual life. He says with that regard that the flesh profits nothing. Spiritual food nourishes the spirit and fleshly food nourishes the flesh. His statement that the flesh profits nothing to the spirit is correct. It didn't under the old covenant and it doesn't now. Ya'll ignore this, play semantics games and ignore the fact that the bread of life was eaten before Christ ever arrived on the scene. If that is so, how do you suppose they were eating jesus flesh if that is what's required to eat the bread of life. Don't make any sense does it. The bread of life in the OT was the word of God - literally what he spoke. Eating the bread of life was a metaphor for hearing and believing/acting upon God's word. So it's not a new thing. It's just that you guys have to ignore and redefine things to conform them to your version - even if if it makes you look absurd. Like Clinton backed into a corner - you debate the meaning of the word is rather than fess up. This is the face of legalism.
The beauty of the Catholic Church is that we do not rest upon whoever is presently alive. Tradition is "the democracy of the dead" Chesterton said. This means that the "theolgians" we "rely" upon are long gone. And there is no evidence of their being "corrupt."
And what is the difference between such a position and the reliance by the NC churches upon the original Apostles ?
Its use as a spoken language began to diminish after Judah was defeated by the Babylonians. By the 3rd to 2nd centuries B.C.E., it was pretty much replaced by Aramaic as the spoken tongue, although it continued to be used, of course, as the language of the Jewish religion. Since Aramaic was the common tongue of the middle east during this period, as well as being the official language of the Persian empire, it isn't surprising that it became the common spoken language among Jews in the region as well -- just as Greek became the common spoken language for Jews in much of the eastern Mediterranean. The close relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic no doubt made the adaptation easier.
Good question. Not a whole lot, actually. Except that we have an actual succession of history showing where our beliefs came from, and moving the core belief to the era of the Apostles.
Where NC churches tend to read their Reformation-era ideas back into history where they are not. Honestly, does the idea that each person is sovereign to read the Scriptures and decide for Himself what is true even make any sense in a pre-literate, pre-printing press world?
SD
How about Heb 5:13 and 14. If you want to quit being a baby get skilled in the Word. It surprises me to find out how few Christians, even Evangelicals actually read through the bible atleast once per year.
Which is to say that we hold the Truth that homosexuality is wrong. We may have gay priests and bishops, but they have to lie and live in secret.
Contrast with the Episcopalians, who simply say "it's not a sin to be homosexual."
Tell me you see a difference? We hold a standard, even if we can't live up to it. Versus collapsing your standards.
We do the same with contraception. We teach it is wrong and continue to hold that belief as official teaching. Most Americans and Westerners probably violate this teaching constantly. But we don't adapt, we don't take a vote.
SD
An apt expression for all of your posts on this subject.
Maybe it doesn't "obviously say" what you think it does. Aren't you the one who thinks the Bible says that Jesus wasn't "born of a woman?"
SD
Good question. Not a whole lot, actually. Except that we have an actual succession of history showing where our beliefs came from, and moving the core belief to the era of the Apostles.
And the original Apostles don't have such a history ?
Where NC churches tend to read their Reformation-era ideas back into history where they are not. Honestly, does the idea that each person is sovereign to read the Scriptures and decide for Himself what is true even make any sense in a pre-literate, pre-printing press world?
Even in the pre-printing press world, christians were commanded to be discerning in their acceptance of teaching.1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Huh? It's the Protestants that don't have this history.
Even in the pre-printing press world, christians were commanded to be discerning in their acceptance of teaching.
Yeah? Doesn't mean that everyone could read or had his own private Bible. I gather most would just have to trust someone to read the Scriptures to them.
SD
Are you kidding? His post to which you replied was full of quotations and words from the Bible. Are you saying it's no good without chapter-and-verse citations?
I find the Keyword Search at Bible Gateway helpful.
Col.2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Basing your belief on if somthing is right or not on what history says is following the traditions, and philosophy of the world.
Becky
Huh? It's the Protestants that don't have this history.
And if I, a believer, have (access to the teachings of) the Apostles, ... why would I need history ?
Yeah? Doesn't mean that everyone could read or had his own private Bible. I gather most would just have to trust someone to read the Scriptures to them.
And the difference, other than convenience, is what ?
Basing your belief upon your own personal interpretation of a text without regard for what has historically been Christian belief is foolishness.
I see no Protestants have jumped up to defend the teachings against contraception and Onanism. What once all Christians understood to be against God's will is now shrugged off.
SD
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.