Posted on 05/11/2005 10:04:08 AM PDT by NYer
The universal testimony of the church.
In other words, Sacred Tradition.
SD
The universal testimony of the church.
In other words, Sacred Tradition.
I believe that my term is more specific and descriptive.
OK, so I think you are saying that I am foolish for believing the bible is inspired and not knowing what group of people picked what books are really inspired. And/or I'm also foolish for not giving them credit for picking which books are inspired since I obviously so totally believe in the inspiration and value of what they selected.
You don't even have to give credit to the Catholic Church for "picking" the texts, since techinically, it was the Holy Spirit guiding them. However, one cannot deny that the Holy Spirit used the Seat of Peter - the Catholic Church - as its vehicle of authority on the matter.
It is not the will of the Holy Spirit to be a dividing force among believers. People divide themselves when they choose not to accept the Truth of the Holy Spirit. The purpose of giving "the keys" to Peter is not just to establish authority, but to create a foundation - a rock, if you will - of unity. The Church was intended to speak with ONE voice on matters of faith. Otherwise, Christianity would have died in the cradle at the hands of various self-interest groups in Syria and Palestine. That authority was given to Peter, and to assume there was an expiration on that authority is to assume the Holy Spirit wants chaos and division. The Holy Spirit knows it's dealing with "men". It knows man will divide and divide and divide without a unifying authority through which He can assert His Truth in interpreting Scripture and practicing Christianity. By not recognizing the authority of the Church, we're left with, for example, denominations that think abortion is okay, and others that don't. We have some denominations that conveniently ignore Christ's SCRIPTURAL admonition against divorce, and others that say, "No, Christ said divorce is wrong." Where's the unifier? Certainly not the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit will never contradict Himself. But for 2000 years, the Catholic Church has taught that abortion is ALWAYS wrong, that divorce is intolerable, that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, etc. etc... There has been no deviation in the faith (not customs) since the beginning.
Maybe so, but categorically it demonstrates that Tradition testifys to the inspiration of Scripture. Scripture can not be the sole rule of faith.
SD
I believe that my term is more specific and descriptive.
Maybe so, but categorically it demonstrates that Tradition testifys to the inspiration of Scripture. Scripture can not be the sole rule of faith.
Certainly it couldn't have been before it was compiled.
But some 1,700 years later ?
I certainly would vouch for the integrity and consistency of scripture over any church tradition of which I am aware.
Men tend to drift.
Scripture does not.
"Matthew is a composite of Mark and the "un-inspired" Gospel of "Q""
I'd be careful about hanging my hat on Q. There is no evidence for its existence. AT ALL! NONE! Yet, we are supposed to take a theory that is substantially based on its existence. This totally disregards the fact that Matthew was written first, according to universal tradition, and that Mark is a composite of Luke and Matthew read side by side and put together. I have never understood why supposed "scholars" totally discount the external evidence that Matthew was written first.
Here is a link to a very good "bookette" on the subject of the Clementine Tradition (Matt, Luke, Mark order). I think you will enjoy it, and you will see why some in the 1800's pushed Mark first despite NO evidence for Q. (hint, it was an anti-Catholic push - go figure).
http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm
Regards
Scripture does not.
But the Catholic Church hasn't drifted on matters of faith for 2000 years. The evidence of 'men drifting' is Protestantism by its very definition of "protesting" authority. Scripture does not drift, sure enough, but by whose authority do you interpret Scripture?
Thank you. I will look into this.
But the Catholic Church hasn't drifted on matters of faith for 2000 years. The evidence of 'men drifting' is Protestantism by its very definition of "protesting" authority. Scripture does not drift, sure enough, but by whose authority do you interpret Scripture?
The very matter which sparked Luther's protest ... indugences ... is an example of doctrinal drift.
Protestants were merely attempting to get back to the basics of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Not really a shocker. That which is written and fixed will tend to be more static than that which is charged with delivering and interpreting the former to peoples and generations.
Men tend to drift. Scripture does not.
As soon as you tell me how you remove men from the equation of understanding and interpreting Scripture, let me know. Until then the question is not "do we trust Scripture or tradition?", but rather whose tradition we use.
SD
"I'm worshipping the bible because I read it and believe it and worshipping the bible is wrong?"
It depends, I suppose, on if the Bible is God. We worship God, not His creation. Worshipping the Bible would be similar to worshipping any other creation, such as Mary. God inspired the Bible. It is inerrant. He used humans to write what He wanted to write at the time. It is not God. Worship the Bible? It is the Spirit that gives life, not the letter. As I mentioned before, people can read the Bible and get nothing spiritual out of it. Atheists read it. Agnostics read it. Scripture scholars like the Jesus Seminar read it. Do they get it? Are they led in the Spirit? I won't answer that, but it is the Spirit Himself, not the words of the Bible, that converts the hearts of man. I hope I have made that clear - the Bible ITSELF cannot convert hearts. The Spirit does. The Bible itself DOES NOT warrant worship. God does. Only Him.
If God would have wanted us to "worship" the Bible, rather than His incarnate flesh (Jesus), I think His salvation plan would have been a bit different. We'd have icons of the Bible, not Jesus. We'd have giant statues of the Bible, not Jesus. The ONLY reason the Bible is given the love and reverance that it receives in the Church is because it is the Word of God (not the LOGOS!). His presence is perceived THROUGH the Scriptures. Think of the Bible as a sacrament - a visible sign of invisible grace. Just like we receive God's grace and blessings through the sacrament of Holy Communion and Reconcilliation, you receive God's grace and blessing through the Bible.
"I'm also out of line for noticing that people who have less regard for the bible read it less and I am trusting that I am righteous because I read the bible. So I should quit reading the bible..."
(i presume this is sarcasm)
No. your habits are commendable. Just the attitude towards others who are not as well-read as you on Scripture. Where does the Bible itself say that we are saved by faith in the bible? We are saved by faith in Christ. By Baptism. By eating His flesh and drinking His blood. But nothing about reading the Bible. Consider the first generation of Christians - did they have a NT Bible? Were they saved regardless? Matthew 25 doesn't mention anything about reading the Bible, but Jesus does mention love as necessary for salvation.
I humbly offer this "correction" to you in the spirit of Matthew 18. Please try to understand that because I don't read 200 pages of the bible daily doesn't make me any less of a Christian than you. Christ instituted the Law of Love, not the Law of reading the Bible.
Brother in Christ
PING to self.
Funny you should ask.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Gal 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
By the way, this is yet another verse that proves Jesus is God too. The word of Christ is not just the red letters but we also know the bible as the Word of God.
I said "...Where does the Bible itself say that we are saved by faith in the bible?"
You replied "...John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Is Jesus refering to His actual spoken words, or to the concept of refering to the Eucharist that gives Life? What does Christ say brings eternal life? His Body and His Blood, not His words...
"The word of Christ is not just the red letters but we also know the bible as the Word of God".
How do you know that? Who told you that? (the correct answer, of course, is the Catholic Church)
JESUS is the Word of God, the Logos, not the letters and ink in the Bible.
Another question. Did the Jews worship the scrolls of the Torah? Yet, they consider the Torah the word of God. They were not divine, nor is the NT Bible.
Regards
I certainly don't see any mention of any eucharist there.
Because it doesn't say, "let the words spoken by Christ dwell in you richly". I really don't need the authority of the Catholic church to tell me what each word and sentence means in the bible. When Jesus said:
Matt 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God
He didn's say, you error not knowing what the church says the scriptures say. He is charging them with not knowing the scriptures.
When you as an RC have a system built apart from the scriptures and spend quite a bit of time trying to reduce the value of the scriptures as they apply to the faith of a believer, it grows pretty tiresome to hear you say that I am also not worthy to think I know what they say.
I asked Aquinasfan on an unrelated thread and he said no, not even his Trinitarian theology.
Indulgences weren't doctrinal drift, the practice of SELLING them was the problem.
"Matt 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God"
Jesus is speaking of the OT Scriptures, correct? And how do you know the NT writings as compiled are Scriptures?
"When you as an RC have a system built apart from the scriptures"
You mean "built" BEFORE the NT Scriptures...By Christ Himself.
"it grows pretty tiresome to hear you say that I am also not worthy to think I know what they say."
I NEVER said you don't know what the Scriptures SAY (although we certainly disagree on a few matters). I am saying "how do you know you HAVE 'Scriptures' when you read the 'Acts of the Apostles', but not 'Acts of Paul'?". Who said you have SCRIPTURE? Why are the Gnostic Gospels not Scripture?
Regards
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.