Posted on 04/26/2005 9:00:20 AM PDT by TheTruthess
"I've been answering questions for you for weeks now"
Typing words is not answering a question!
First, Post 51 and 53, I don't know what you are talking about.
Post 61, you said "The Bible is from God. It is authored by God. It is given to us by God"
How is that answering a question? You just merely repeat a statement. HOW DO YOU KNOW THE BIBLE IS FROM GOD? Repeating "because" is not an answer! You think that is a courteous answer to my question? It is avoiding my question! You have yet to answer a question I have put to you many times.
I addressed post 71 in post 75.
I have asked you over and over "how do you know the Bible is from God". YOU have not answered anything! And now, you are accusing me of avoiding answering you? I told you, be patient. I will answer you regarding the Church. However, I have learned from discussing topics with you that we need to keep on a narrow focus. Otherwise, you will avoid the question by asking me another unrelated question. This is a debating tactic that I will not fall for.
To progress logically, I desire that you answer "How do you know the Bible is from God". Once I show you the sand your logic is built on, I will show you how the Church is the ONLY correct answer. But first, prove me that the Church is unnecessary. If you cannot, just say so, and we can move along.
"You haven't even tried to answer many of the questions I've asked of you in those posts"
If I answered every off topic question, we would get nowhere. I don't expect you to answer every single question that I have asked, either.
"I am no longer convinced you are really familiar with what is in Scripture."
Ditto
"And I am certainly convinced that you don't understand faith."
Because I ask you questions you can't answer? My faith is secure, brother!
I would like to hear why you think you can pick up the Bible and get everything you need out of it without the benefit of a Church - despite the verses that tells us private interpretation is wrong, despite Jesus establishing a teaching Church, despite the Apostles continuing to appoint successors, despite there was a Church for many years before their was a NT (which disproves the absolute need for Scripture alone), despite nowhere does Scripture say it is self-sufficient, etc...
"You say the Catholic faith is all in the Bible. Show me"
Nice try. But I asked you first. Break out of your circular argument and show me how Scripture alone is even Biblical. The definition itself disproves it! You are presuming the Bible is inspired without giving me a reason why I should believe that it is. Why is it the Word of God?
Regards
"Why would Athanasius consider divinely inspired Scripture to be unsuitable for reading inside the Church, but useful for instruction outside of the Church. How could the inspired Word of God not be good enough to read in church?"
I have answered this previously. There could be a number of reasons why this is the case. Athanasius did not desire to have questionable, middle-level books read during Liturgical worship. This is proven by his exclusion of Esther, a book that doesn't even mention God. When worshipping God, why read from a book that doesn't mention God? Another reason could be that discussing vivid, intense stories, like Judith or the Maccabees, was not meant to be read during worship. Another reason is Athanasius had to deal with actual Apocryphal books and didn't want any books that were questioned by some to be read. Post 44 shows conclusively what he felt when writing to other bishops about the matter. Your continuous refusal to accept that and redirect the conversation this way does not make it go away. Athanasius considered most of the Deuterocanonicals, at the very least, as Scripture. End of story. Sorry if you want to continue to dissect Festal 39, as if that overrides his entire writing career.
"But as I've said several times now, we will just have to agree to disagree. I personally, have no problem with that"
Was there any doubt from the start that you were going to disagree with me? Your continuing to ignore the obvious evidence from the Ante-Nicene writings points this out. Go and re-read post 44 and post 41 to see that there was pretty broad agreement that the Deuts were Scripture. You focus on a couple of Fathers, yet offer ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that anyone other than Jerome, considered the Deuts as NOT inspired. I am not talking canon. There is a distinction which I have repeated over and over again.
I said "...Rather, you prefer to approach this with you mind already made up."
You said "...Funny except when you insist on telling me what I'm thinking. Then you are just being a jackass.
It's obvious what you are thinking. I don't need for you to spell it out.
I don't know what else to say to you on this subject. I have spent hours beyond what I thought that I would. For what? What have you done? Have you done ANY research from the Fathers to see what they actually wrote, outside of a few canon lists? Have you given ONE quote that someone said Tobit (etc) is not inspired? You appeared to want to do some legitimate, unbiased research on the issue. All you do is continue to flash PARTS of Festal Letter 39, which I have answered, as if that determines everything. I give a list of numerous FAthers and cases when they actually say "Tobit is inspired" or link it with another inspired book. Athanasius, I listed SEVEN quotes. You conveniently ignore them. That took a long time, Rokke. What evidence have you shown me that your point - that the Fathers did not think the Deuts were Scripture? Rehashing something I already explain. Focusing on a few Fathers. As if a few Fathers determines what the entire Church feels about the matter. You have failed to prove that the Church was misguided in placing the Deuts in the Canon. If the evidence that I have given you is insufficient, it is apparent that nothing will convince you. I don't need to be clairvoyant to know that.
Thanks a lot for wasting my time...
That you and I can't agree on just about anything regarding church history is not surprising. In one of your more pleasant posts you admitted that you "hadn't previously realized it (sorting out info on the Deuts) was THIS difficult". Guess what...you learned something. You say you spent "a long time" researching info on Athanasius. You must have learned something or you wouldn't have had to search. Do you really think that was a waste of time? In the last 5 days I've been working to sell my house in New Jersey, buy one in Colorado, plan a 120 man, 6 jet deployment to Canada to support a Canadian Naval exercise, I've sat two 24 hour alert periods and flown 3 training sorties. And with all that, do you know what I consider the most productive and beneficial time I spent? It was the time I spent studying those chapters (15 et al) in the book of Acts. I love reading the Bible. It is magical to me. I read one verse that leads me to another that draws me to another that teaches me something else that shows me something new. There is nothing else like it. It is alive. It is true. It is real. I've read it over and over and there is never a time that I read anything in it that I would consider a waste of time.
I get the feeling that you've spent most of your time trying prove something. You keep telling me what I've concluded, and what I'm "obviously" thinking. You tell me I've proved nothing. Jo kus, I have no need to "prove" anything to you. I never said that was my intent. I don't care if you agree with what I believe. I don't even know you. But if it makes you feel any better, you caused me to spend even more time meditating on my faith and God's Word than I would otherwise. That in itself, is an accomplishment you should be satisfied with. And if I've caused you to explore your own faith, to study God's Word, and to seek a deeper understanding of why you believe what you believe, than I am pleased. And my time was not wasted.
"You say the Catholic Church is "all in the Bible". I asked at least 5 specific times for Scriptural support for some of your claims that you yourself say are Scriptural."
We are going in two different directions. I have asked you for your reasons why the Bible alone is good enough. I have asked you what is the reason for the hope you have within you. You respond with circular arguments and evasion. Very well. I see you don't want to talk about why you think the Bible is inspired on its own merit. I thought you had some sort of backing to what you believe in, but I suppose I was wrong, as you continue to refuse to answer.
You ask for mine. Since you refuse to give me your reasons, I will give you mine. Very well.
I take the Gospels initially as nothing more than writings. I have not yet determined it is nothing more than Cicero or Plato. It is not inspired at this point. First, I note that it is historically accurate. There is no reason to discount that what it says is fantasy. In the Gospels, I find several charecteristics:
1. There is a man named Jesus.
2. This man claimed to be a messenger from God.
3. He proved He was a messenger from God by performing miracles - miracles with a connection to what was claimed.
4. He formed an inner group of followers
5. He gave this inner group special teachings, explaining to them the inner meaning of his parables, etc.
6. This messenger told His inner circle to teach others, promising that God would protect them and their successors teachings forever.
Given this in the heretofore uninspired writings, I then also see that there is something called "apostolic succession". This apostolic succession is both outside immediately following the time frame of the Bible and the Bible time frame itself. When I look at the writings of the next generation of this inner group, I see a continuity. I see this adherence to apostolic succession as the means by which we can know that the correct teachings are continued to be handed down. And so, outside of the Bible, I see the Bible itself is verified by the teachings of the next generation. This community considers that the Apostles had been given the authority to teach and that their authority would be protected by God Himself. This is even seen within the Bible itself. So what we have is the Bible verified by Apostolic Succession. The Church says "see, there is an historically accurate book that points to the Church's authority. Apostolic succession continues this teaching" The proper way of interpretating the Bible, then, is the Apostolic Tradition and Teachings passed down to the next generation. The Bible itself has no force of itself to do this, as it is not self-attesting. Thus, we have no circular argument. The Church bases its authority on what the Bible says, not for itself. Given the continuity of the Apostles to the next generations, we have historical basis to see the mustard seed develop into what it is today.
"Do you really think that was a waste of time?"
Maybe. The Church isn't a democracy where 2/3 votes are required to pass something. Case in point. Pope Paul VI formed a commmittee to decide on the question of contraception during the 1960's. Some 85% thought that he should overturn 1900 years of tradition, as the people wanted to be free to practice this. He said no. He wrote an encyclical that proved very prophetic on the culture of death. This is an excellent example of how the Spirit works despite human "interference". The point is that even if you proved that the Deuts were not considered Scripture (which you haven't in any way) means nothing. I went along with this "research" out of curiosity. EVEN if you were correct meant nothing. I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church, as Christ promised. Attitudes leading up to Councils are inconsequential, as I proved regarding Acts 15 and the first Council. The Spirit will be heard!
"6 jet deployment to Canada to support a Canadian Naval exercise, I've sat two 24 hour alert periods and flown 3 training sorties"
Small world. I work for the USMC in Yuma in support of aviation there, as well.
"I love reading the Bible. It is magical to me."
I agree, brother. I read it every day. How else would I come up with John 14:20 of the top of my head?
"I've read it over and over and there is never a time that I read anything in it that I would consider a waste of time."
Agreed. But we haven't been discussing the Bible, but rather opinions on whether certain Fathers thought certain books were Scripture.
"I get the feeling that you've spent most of your time trying prove something"
There is probably some truth in that statement. I regret that I am not as humble as I would like to be. Please pray for me.
"I have no need to "prove" anything to you"
Except that the Church was wrong in placing the Deuterocanonicals into Scripture. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you continue to deny it.
"That in itself, is an accomplishment you should be satisfied with."
Yes, you are correct. However, I don't think I would have begun all of this if I had known that you would never accept any proof that the Church Fathers thought the Deuterocanonicals were Scripture. My Church, with God-given authority, has already proclaimed it as such. I don't need to prove it to you or anyone. God guides the Church, and so no matter what you would have unearthed wouldn't have made a difference. However, we find that the evidence clearly shows that the Fathers as a whole did think the Deuts were inspired Scripture. This is clear in the many quotes I have seen, and no quotes saying to the contrary. It was an interesting excercise. But really, I would like to know what you would say on the matter once you "research" the NT Deuts...
Regards.
I find your explaination of why your faith in the Bible rests in the uninspired writings of "the next generation of this inner group" interesting. But my question to you (aside from asking for Scriptural references to support some of your claims) was "what is your source concerning the authority of the Church?" I think your answer is "The Church says "see, there is an historically accurate book that points to the Church's authority." So the Church says the Bible is accurate and the Church gets its authority to make that judgement from the Bible. But that somehow isn't circular.... Gotcha.
And by "gotcha" I'm not implying I got you. I should have said "Got it."
However, the Bible is not clear on many issues.
I agree that the Bible is not clear on many issues and I will refer to the following scripture and accept it:
Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. NKJV
"Is Christ God, an Angel, a man who the Logos entered after Jesus' birth, a combination God/man who left during the Crucifixion, etc..." Only the Church can determine correctly the answer to this.
This has nothing to do with my, or anyone else's, salvation and I do not wish to discuss what the various Protestant churches believe in that I am sure I will have disagreement with majority of them on various issues. I do believe that it is okay to have various opinions on different issues and it not affect my salvation.
The issue I believe in the beginning of teaching another is the issue of salvation. What do you believe I need to know in order to be saved? The rest comes later - moving from the "milk" of the Word to the "meat".
This is between you and me - two people who believe the Bible. I believe the Bible and you claim the name of Catholic. You believe you are right and I am in error - I do not want to be in error. I believe to be in error would jeopardize my soul. Therefore, using only the Bible (our common ground) - teach me what I must do to be saved according to your understanding of God's Word.
Please know I am sincere and very serious about my salvation.
______________________________
On a separate note, it's Derby Day (a very busy day here in the Louisville, KY area) and I will have a house full of family and therefore, will not be replying to posts very often today.
Lea
We all agree very great men put a lot of work and study into determining what books belong in what we now know as the Bible. Whether these men called themselves by particular names (Catholic, etc.) does not matter. Lets move on from there....
What does matter is the salvation of the world!
What must we do to be saved? We have God's Word. We have it in written form. I believe it is sufficient. Teach me from what I believe because I will not believe anything else but what God has revealed through His inspired Word which has been collected and put together in what we now have today called the BIBLE.
Lea
Why are you getting in the way of a perfectly productive argument on religious doctrine? I mean, in the last month or so we've concluded....um....well....nothing. Stop using the voice of reason to try to convince us that we have more in common than in difference. 2000 years of history have proven that men are far more comfortable arguing about doctrine than sharing their common beliefs. Then along comes some woman who subtly suggests we're acting like kindergartners. You are bucking eons of tradition.
What other purpose do I have in this life? Women were created to be helpers. What a fantastic plan and wonderful role in life given by the One and Only True and Living God!
Lea
"Why are you are chastising me for not answering questions you never asked me?"
HUH? Where is Rokke? Read Post 58 and on. You have yet to answer "how can we KNOW what is the Word of God, and whether any was left out?" I have re-phrased that over and over.
Your answer?
"The Bible is from God. It is authored by God. It is given to us by God." Post 61.
And this ridiculous "answer" continues from then on! I see your faith rests on logical sand. You continue this circular argument, then to try to change the focus from you, since you can't answer the question. In post 80, you cry "jo kus, you haven't answered my questions", conveniently forgeting that I asked you one first. Post 81, I immediately point out this mistake. Then you tell me how extremely busy you are (who isn't), harass me that I never answer questions, I never give scripture quotes, (any one can see that is false. but here are some more: Mt 16:18, Mt 18: 17-18, Luke 10:16, John 13:20, Deut 17:8-13, Jude 10-11, Mat 28:20, Acts 2:14-36, Acts 5:13. Oh, there are many more. And how about Proverbs 3:5,7 or 2 Peter 1:20. Where is Bible alone in the Bible again? No reply?), then you wax gloriously on how great the Bible is - without one word to answer my question "how do you know you have a book from God?". All debating ploys and nothing more. Anyone reading these posts will see the hollowness of your accusations.
In the face of this, just as I have with the Deuterocanonicals, (I told you that it didn't matter what we found, the Church had made a decision. The Church isn't a democratic society that counts heads. I am not biased about the results as you have shown yourself to be. What is ironic is that I did the research that you should have been doing.) I put your evading my questions aside, let you off your proverbial limb, and in the name of Christian brotherhood, I showed you that my faith stands on a logical argument. If you re-read carefully, you will see the Church's authority rests on apostolic authority, both within and without the Bible. It doesn't rest on the Bible. The Bible merely records what was already happening! It is not a circular argument. It is verified by the Bible AND extra-Biblical writing. Whether you agree or not is inconsequential.
The fact is that you still don't know how to answer "how do you know you have the Word of God". It seems you are very good at trying to destroy other people's arguments, such as why a Catholic believes in the authority of the Church, or why the Church legitimately placed the Deuterocanonicals into the Scripture contents. But what positive argument have you advanced? Have you shown even one Father who said the Deuts were NOT inspired Words of God, besides Jerome? NO. Have you shown that the Bible is the Word of God without the Church? NO. Have you shown your belief is based on logic, which I might just disagree with? NO. You have advanced no argument - and have even found it necessary to interrupt my conversation with another Christian so that you could continue to try to destroy something without providing anything to replace it with.
I can see there is no point in continuing this conversation.
Good bye. Again.
Lea,
"We can all agree the Bible is the inspired Word of God!"
We never disagreed on this. The disagreement is over how one gets to that point. How would an unbeliever, coming to the book we call the Bible, necessarily know that it is from God? The Scriptures are not self-attesting to this. WE (US) need the Church, the divinely established authority to tell us that the Scriptures ARE inspired by God. Are we to believe that Philemon or Jude is inspired by God on its own merits? Hardly.
The point I have been trying to make and Rokke refuses to acknowledge, is that without the authority of the Catholic Church, we would have no clue on what is the inspired Word of God. Luther himself admitted this. It is common sense. Without the Church, you have cut off the Body of Christ from the Head. Why do you find that necessary? Christ Himself says "whoever hears you hears Me". He gave the Apostles the power to bind and loosen. I don't want to bore you with more quotes, unless you want me to.
"Teach me from what I believe because I will not believe anything else but what God has revealed through His inspired Word which has been collected and put together in what we now have today called the BIBLE"
Again, the same people who declared "this is written by God" are the same people who continue to teach us in the Church. If you accept their infallible authority to tell us what is Scripture, why does the Holy Spirit leave them and they can no longer be trusted?
Regards
"What do you believe I need to know in order to be saved?"
What do you think about "VERY TRULY, (this is God talking, now) unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will rasie them on the last day." John 6:53, 54.
Seems to me that sounds like a requirement for salvation, no? Would you say it is important to know, then, what God is talking about here? What has the Church said about this for 2000 years?
And you? "This teacing is difficult; who can accept it?" (John 6:60). And "Because of this, many of His disciptles turned back and no longer went about with Him (John 6:66).
Regards
I see those people as no better than you or me - sinners seeking the Truth. I give them great credit for the work and study they devoted to putting the Book together. I have FAITH that God did that through them - whether they were good men or bad. I believe God causes all things to work together for good (Romans 8:29).
Let's move on. From His inspired written Word is the only guide which you can convince me to follow what you believe. You have stated in post 66 That's the beauty of the Catholic faith, it's all in the Bible. You believe you belong to the one true church. You believe I do not. I must be lost. I must be saved. You have been charged by the Word of God as a Christian to teach the lost (Mark 16:15). Use only His Word to do that.
I am seeking to be saved!
Lea
On a separate note - please do not be rude or sarcastic. I don't believe the Lord would teach in this way. Teaching the Truth in love is the only way to save others. If we are sarcastic and rude others will believe we do not have Christ in us. They will think us to be hypocrites.
Okay. I will begin.
I have been told in my lifetime I may not be saved. How dare someone tell me this - I'm a good person. I go to church (maybe or off and on). I consider myself to be a rational person and therefore, I begin to think - by whose standard am I good? Everyone has a differing opinion of "good". How good am I? I haven't killed anyone. I don't steal. How dare someone accuse me of not being saved!
On another occasion in my life someone again brings up the issue of my salvation. Someone directs me to Matthew 7:13-14: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." NKJV Again, I am angry - how dare they!
One day, I begin to wonder, who are the few? Who are the many? Where am I in all of this? Maybe I should look into this.
Okay. How do I start? I've been told I'm lost - I've heard the Bible is where I should start - I guess I'll start there. I will do this because I have at least heard of the Bible in my lifetime and most people who profess to be Christian at least claim the Bible as God's Word.
First, I try to begin in Genesis. Didn't work. Close the Book. Move on with life.
Again, someone prods me. I am not happy with it either! I begin to study with someone who has been studying and can kind of get me started in the right direction. I am asked "do you know what you must do to be saved?" "Not really" I answer.
First I guess I need to know that I am a sinner? I've already been told I may not be saved.
How do I find out from God's Word about sin?
I will offer Romans 3:10: "...There is none righteous, no, not one;" NKJV
AND
Romans 3:23-24: "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," NASB
Anything else about sin? Remember, I am lost and first need to see that I am truly lost.
Lea
(Not trying to avoid your previous post but I had already typed this. I must say, I believe I need to be convicted as a sinner first.) I believe we will move toward your question of the "Lords body" as we progress. Let's stay on this target first.)
Also, I will be signing off for the day. I hope to continue tomorrow or Monday.
"I give them great credit for the work and study they devoted to putting the Book together. I have FAITH that God did that through them"
Well, we are then much closer together than I had previously thought. If the last guy I conversed with would have made such a statement, we could have moved on...
"You believe you belong to the one true church. You believe I do not. I must be lost. I must be saved."
That is not true! You may think "why is a Catholic saying this"? I believe that the Catholic Church was established by Christ, true. I believe it is the fullest manifestation of what He wants to be taught. True. However, the Church does NOT require a person be enrolled in the Roman Catholic Church to be saved. The Church is seen in its visible unity at Rome. However, to the degree that we both hold to common teachings, you still are actually part of the Church. We call you separated brothers. We both hold to many common teachings, and Aquinas says "on essentials, unity, on non-essentials, liberty. On all things, charity". Because we do disagree on several essentials, we should discuss them. But don't think that I consider you "lost"! God will judge us on our response to His Love. If a person responds to His Love, even if a Gentile, He can be saved - as Romans 1 declares.
If I was rude or sarcastic, plese forgive me. I don't intend on being rude or sarcastic. I am a work in progress.
Regards
"Main objective: What must I do to be saved?"
"I have been told in my lifetime I may not be saved"
Yea, that is pretty presumptuous for someone to say that, isn't it? Only God knows the "status" of our soul.
"Everyone has a differing opinion..."
This is what makes private interpretation of the Bible a difficult concept for me. How do I know whether the Baptists are correct, or the Lutherans? It is absolutely frightening for one in search of the truth. The Bible says "God desires all men to be saved AND TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH". (1 Tim 2:3-4)
"...I've been told I'm lost - I've heard the Bible is where I should start - I guess I'll start there. I will do this because I have at least heard of the Bible in my lifetime and most people who profess to be Christian at least claim the Bible as God's Word"
Lots of presumptions here. But we'll leave that for now.
"...Anything else about sin? Remember, I am lost and first need to see that I am truly lost."
That is interesting. I wonder if that all was hypothetical or if that was your story. I am always interested in hearing how people come to Christ, or return to Him. I have returned to the Church about 5 years ago after a 20 year falling away. For me, it wasn't the realization that I had sinned that brought me back. It was realizing that I was not in control of my life, no matter how much I made or how smart I was.
Religion begins with the recognition of God's greatness and our own limitations. It begins with our ability, confidence, and security being totally shattered. Our supposed control of our destiny is an illusion. The things that matter most in our lives are beyond our control, no matter what we do! That is when, I think, most people feel the need to turn to THE POWER, God. What do you think?
Anyway, carry on with your train of thought.
Brother in Christ
I read your last post and have considered a couple of things you wrote. I believe these things should be addressed before continuing.
You quoting me - Everyone has a differing opinion...
I believe the reason for the differing opinions (about whether they or others are good or bad) is the failure of mankind to look to God's Word to find out what He has to say - about ALL things.
Most everyone has a certain standard (whether they came up with it on their own or it was handed down to them somehow). We even have a standard rule of measure. I'm sure you would agree. By what standard do we live our lives and conduct ourselves?
I remember when working in a law office a client brought in a divorce agreement which had been drawn by the opposing party's counsel. The parties had children. The divorce agreement was fine except when you got to the part about visitation. Someone thought, out of laziness I would say, to write "parties to have joint custody with mother as primary custodian and the father to have (get this) reasonable visitation." Two people who can't get along enough to stay married were expected to figure out what was "reasonable" visitation. What's reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another. Reasonable. I'm a reasonably good person - but by what standard?
Our standard is God's Word. You and I have come to the conclusion that we agree with this. God's Word has full authority.
Let us continue...
This is what makes private interpretation of the Bible a difficult concept for me.
What is so difficult? I consider myself to be a reasonable person. I have the ability to think and reason, ponder and discern. I'm gathering from what I've read of your postings since I've joined Free Republic that you also possess this capability.
Would you leave your family behind without a Will? And if you left a Will, your family should be capable of understanding it don't you think? Except lawyers have come into the picture and made it difficult. Hmmm.... sound familiar? What should be a simple thing now appears difficult because man, in his arrogance, has stuck his nose into everything thinking he can make it better. How dare someone think they can better interpret what you are trying to tell your family in your Will. I'm sure your family possess the same capabilities of understanding as you.
In every aspect of life WE are responsible for ourselves. WE are responsible for our own understanding of things. When we are hired for a job and handed the company policy handbook what do you believe is expected of us? Common sense tells us we need to read it and know it. Do you think people do that? Few. Instead we are lazy and ask a co-worker questions every now and then (or all the time). All of a sudden we do something that's not quite right with company policy. Oops - "I didn't know that" or so and so "told me to do it this way". Who was responsible? Who pays the price?
I am driving my car and the passenger tells me the speed limit is 65. I believe him/her and proceed to drive at 65 MPH. I then get pulled over for speeding. Who is responsible? Who pays the price?
Why doesn't this same reasoning apply with God's Word? Why don't people take responsibility and know God and His Word for themselves? My parents aren't going to be there standing with me before judgment - I will stand alone. I will be held responsible for knowing God and His Word.
How do I know whether the Baptists are correct, or the Lutherans?
Since we both agree God's Word has ALL authority let's take a look and compare:
The Baptists teach faith alone saves and that baptism is to enter into the Baptist church. The Bible teaches in James that faith without works is dead:
James 2:14-17 "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
James 2:24 "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." This is the ONLY time the words "faith only" appear in the Bible!
Pretty clear to me. So, can we say that the Baptists are wrong about faith only? I believe they are.
What about their teaching about baptism?
Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." In this verse baptism precedes salvation.
Acts 2:38 "And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;" In this verse the Scripture teaches baptism is for the remission of sins. Again, can we say that the Baptists are wrong? I believe so.
Lutherans teach faith alone as well. Also, their name "Lutheran" is a central doctrine. Luther himself wrote "I pray you leave my name alone and not to call yourselves Lutherans, but Christians." (The Life of Luther, Michelet, pg. 262) ***
Acts 4:12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." - no other name.
1 Peter 4:16 "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God." - the name should be Christian.
Acts 26:28 "And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
Acts 11:26 "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."
Now to some this may not seem important or be a determination of salvation. But God's Word (the Bible) clearly contradicts these things doesn't it? I believe this determination is not difficult to understand. Yet, many stand by these doctrines.
Also, please know these are just fundamentals of Baptists and Lutherans.
Back to private interpretation and then I will wait for your response.
Millions of people accept what church organization tells them about the Bible, believing that the Bible cannot be understood by laymen. Others study the Bible for themselves, believing that every individual has a God-given ability and responsibility to search the Scriptures and understand its message. Which is right?
The Berean believers were complimented in Acts 17:11, because they didn't just automatically believe whatever the apostle Paul said, but searched the Scriptures daily to see whether what he said was so. Consider also who the Bible was written to. Was it written to the religious officials to interpret to laymen or was it written to the Christians themselves? (Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:1, etc.). Paul, in writing to disciples in Ephesus, said that they could understand the gospel by reading what he wrote (Ephesians 3:3-5). The key to understanding the Bible is not choosing the right interpreter, but having a good and honest heart (Luke 8:11-15).
Those who believe in the need of "official interpretation" claim that this will cure the problem of religious division. In fact, the opposite is true. All who simply believe and obey the Bible are united. Religious division in this country stems from the dozens of church organizations in the world, each officially interpreting the Bible for its followers. Don't just accept what any religious organization or teacher says. Search the scriptures daily to see if those things are so!
By the way, you are not allowed to be as long-winded as me - just kidding.
Lea (Remember, Scripture only. Quotes from any other source will be stricken from the record.)
*** I rarely rely on quotes from any other source than God's Word, the Bible. I will try not to do that again. I believed it was necessary in that paragraph.
Lea
"Our standard is God's Word. You and I have come to the conclusion that we agree with this. God's Word has full authority"
I agree. But WHAT, Lea, IS God's Word? Most Protestants that I know, including yourself, limit this to 66 books written 1900 plus years ago. Others include 73 books. Also, Catholics realize that God's Word also comes to us in unwritten form, as well. Paul says "I praise you for remembering me in everything and HOLDING to the TEACHINGS (naturally, unwritten), just as I passed them on to you" (1 Cor 11:2). He also says "stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter". (2 Thess 2:15). The Bible itself is pretty clear that the Bible is not ALONE in the presentation of the Gospel, the teachings we are to believe to be saved. Nowhere have I found that the Bible replaces in any way unwritten Tradition.
I am only pointing this out, since it is from Scripture itself. You don't need me to provide the Catholic Church's own writings on the subject, do you? If so, I can refer you to more eloquent statements than mine.
"Can we say that the Baptists are wrong about faith only? I believe they are."
I agree with you. But using rationale, try this approach with a Baptist. They may defend this belief more strongly with other verses that will make your discussion a verse tossing battle. The Baptist will unlikely to take your own private interpretation for anything authoritative. This is what happens when we don't have an authoritative group or person to make such judgment decisions.
Consider our Nation's Government. You are certainly aware of the Constitution? Well, it can be interpreted in many different ways and nuances. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers didn't apply Protestantism and Sola Scriptura principles to our Government! Otherwise, people would interpret the Law the way they saw fit! Every person would be a government onto itself! Fortunately, they created the Supreme Court, the final authoritative body that would judge interpretation of the Constitution and Laws that would be passed by the Legislative Branch.
I think God, knowing mankind very well, would have made similar provisions, don't you think?
I said "...This is what makes private interpretation of the Bible a difficult concept for me."
You said "...What is so difficult? I consider myself to be a reasonable person. I have the ability to think and reason, ponder and discern."
Yes. God has given both of us rational minds. However, Christianity is a REVEALED religion. It is not about coming to a philosophical decision about God, like the Greeks of Plato's day. This is also true of the Hebrews. They experienced God. He came to THEM! And, out of love, He revealed things about Himself. This revelation reached its fullness with Jesus Christ - the visible manifestation of God. With this in mind, our rational, for all of its usefullness, cannot comprehend or come to the conclusions that Jesus taught us, without knowing this.
Example. Trinity. Which human would have rationalized that without the Scripture and Tradition GIVEN to the Apostles? No one. How about Jesus was/is God AND Man? No one. That God would humble Himself to come in the form of bread and wine to share of Himself out of Love? No one. This is where ration falls aside and faith takes over. Where we give in to the fact that Christianity is a REVEALED religion, given to us by God Himself. Those who prefer rationale as the basis for their religion should try some of the Eastern forms of spirituality.
"The key to understanding the Bible is not choosing the right interpreter, but having a good and honest heart (Luke 8:11-15)."
In theory, that may work, but in practice, it doesn't. I choose not to judge that you are not a good and honest person at heart merely because you do not believe in the Eucharist as I do. I may say misguided. I may say you are wrong. But being honest and sincere doesn't make someone right. If I honestly thought 2 plus 2 is 5, if I was sincere about it, would it be true? Honesty and sincerity is not a requirement of truth. God is truth, and He gave us the revelation of truth through Jesus Christ, who then instructed His Apostles to "Go and make disciples of all nations...and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you". (Mt 28:19-20). We know everything that Jesus did was not written. (John 21:25) Thus, everything that Jesus commanded is not necessarily written down, then, is it?
"All who simply believe and obey the Bible are united."
That is flat out incorrect, easily demonstrated by picking up the Yellow Pages and looking up "Christian Churches". You will find a lot of "Bible-believing" people who are honestly trying to obey the Bible. But again, being honest and being true is not necessarily related.
I am willing to continue in any direction you would like to go. I do think, however, that we should not presume that the Word of God is limited to only the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. And of course, we are forgetting that the Church, Christ's established community, had the authority to declare them as Scripture, and no others. Thus, it is a mistake to forget about the Church that gave us the Scripture in the first place.
Carry on. I will try to be succinct, but God has not blessed me with that gift!
Brother in Christ
I don't presume - I have faith. In conversing with me about "religion" you have to stay on what we have established as our common ground. We both believe God's Word in written form as the Bible and the final authority. The one true authority. We have faith that God is all powerful and causes all things to work together for His good.
"All who simply believe and obey the Bible are united."
By the way, the key words in that sentence are believe and obey. Most don't (Matthew 7:13-14). If everyone did we would be united. Obedience.
Lets move on. Where would you like to begin?
Lea
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.