Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Huh? Inasmuch as God was witnessed on earth by the Apostles who quote Him verbatim (assuming the Gospels are not copies of each other -- and that is not far fetched), all the Scripture is either a record of how an individual author "heard" God or how an Apostle remembers hearing Jesus Christ's words.
You are once again in denial that the Five Books of Moses go back only 500 years BC (Babylonian captivity), and that the biblical tradition of the Hebrews was passed on by word of mouth for a couple of thousand years at least, or at least one thousand years -- depending whose history you believe.
It takes more than faith to convince oneself that what was passed on by word of mouth remained "unfiltered" and unaltered by fallible men in at least one thousand years. The fact that the Old Testament itself, the three versions of it (Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text) all differ from each other in length and content, throws serious doubt in the validity of your statement.
The various variations and errors of translations and human choreography of the Christian Scripture has been shown to have corrupted even the words of Christ (assuming they are verbatim and that He said them exactly as such) by translations that carry erroneous tense, and meaning.
The Scripture in its totality carries a message that is infallible and that withstands every scrutiny. The more one scrutinizes the message of the Bible as a whole, the more one realizes that none of its apparent contradicitons are contradictions.
Don't you believe that the bread and wine miraculous changes into the actual blood and flesh of Christ? Why then it is so difficult to believe that God could ensure His word remained "unfiltered" and "unaltered"? If God can change the elements can't He maintain continuity in writing? The early church fathers believed this.
Absolutely correct!!! God doesn't let us bounce around like some cosmic pinballs. He knows what is best for us and He gives us what we need or withholds His hand for our benefit.And for many of us, under your theology, what is best for us and what benefits us is condemnation to Hell before we are even born.
Wouldn't you agree that if Christ didn't come we would all go to hell regardless? What Christ did was to rescue SOME of us out of this condition based solely upon His grace. What would you disagree with?
Wouldn't you agree that if Christ didn't come we would all go to hell regardless? What Christ did was to rescue SOME of us out of this condition based solely upon His grace. What would you disagree with?So you believe that the Jews who lived before Christ are in Hell?
I am sure you do.
The passage definitely refers to Mary, whether she or her seed Christ is doing the crushing. Just ask the scientific community.
NAB is a horrid translation, inheriting all the Protestant obfuscations about Mary, by the way. About the only thing better about it is the Genesis 3:15 correction. Everyone should stick to Douay-Rheims and wait for the ICEL revision or replacement of NAB, which, I hear, are in the works and are going to be good.
And you know this how??? You continue:
Humanity was without the written word of God for most of its history and even the last 1600 years or so when the Bible was around, by far most of the people could not read, let alone understand or afford it.
Are you saying that God didn't plan the Bible because it didn't show up until it did? Was Jesus part of God's plan? He was pretty late too wasn't He?
Are you willing to believe that the Hebrew oral tradition was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another in the exact and unaltered form for centuries? If you do, historical facts do not support your belief.
No, I would expect there to be errors in passing down oral tradition, both from the Hebrews and from the Catholics. That's why I don't trust them. It's only natural that fallible men will make mistakes. I do believe that God's written word was authored by God Himself and is infallible and not subject to mistake, unlike tradition.
The Bible became affordable to the majority of the people only in the latter half of the 20th century, and literacy levels still prevent at least 50% of the people to have any real comprehension and appreciation of the Bible.
Yes, and........? :) This doesn't address the truth and authority of the Bible. Of course scripture will be taught orally, we are commanded to do just that. But the basis of our teaching and whether it is righteous is to what degree it parrots God's word. I think you would agree that we will be judged based upon what we know, so it is irrelevant that relatively few have had clear access to the actual book. Oral teaching is fine as long as it doesn't change the meaning of scripture. Of course, we would disagree on what this means.
Translational errors, linguistic limitations, understanding of historical context, colloquial use of terms, and original-language complexities reduce the number of people who can really appreciate the Scripture to almost a trickle.
Forget a trickle, how about none! :) This is why I say that God is responsible for it all. If you believe in man's real participation, then you're right, the Bible is a highly improbable document to be perfectly accurate.
There is absolutely no substance to support Luther's naive idea of sola scriptura as part of God's plan or as an inerrant source of faith. It's not the word of God that was revealed that is in error or contradiction, but rather it is our interpretation and understanding of it.
There is no substance that you will accept as evidence. Your tradition disallows you. I also assume you just admitted your belief that the Bible is not inerrant, in favor of men's beliefs. You appear to say that men's interpretations of the Bible trump God's own interpretations as revealed in scripture.
That is why we rely on the writings of not just the Apostles, but all those who followed in their steps, and compare their understanding and interpretation of the Scripture, starting with the people who were with the Apostles in person, who were taught by them, who knew the reality of the earliest Christian world...
Then why were so many of these exact writings and teachings rejected as unworthy of inclusion in the Bible? Wasn't there a lot of disagreement about what got in? So, who is to know what to trust?
"Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not Enemies have driven me into Thy embrace more than friends have. Friends have bound me to earth, enemies have loosed me from earth and have demolished all my aspirations in the world.
This doesn't make sense to me. I don't think of secularists, pornographers, drug dealers, and liberals as leading me to God. I see them as leading me away. Isn't satan the great tempter? Satan is surely my enemy. Why do we pray for God to not lead us into temptation, if this actually leads us back to God? I can't believe that satan leads me to God.
To use the wisdom of Athonite Archimandrite Sophrony, who says: "The Holy Spirit comes when we are receptive. He does not compel. He approaches so meekly that we may not even notice."
Humility, FK, humility.
With all due humility, I'm very pro-humility. :) How am I not being humble? You seem to hold the view that the Spirit doesn't come to me, but only to the hierarchs. Am I not receptive? From your other posts you seem to think that my side just makes up everything because we disagree with your leaders. We just believe in the Bible, not ourselves. We believe the Spirit works in all believers, not just a tiny few.
Thanks for noticing. It is absolutely intentional and for the exact reason you give. :) I don't see satan as a proper name because there is nothing proper about satan!
Because He never said so. I would imagine that the word explicit I used would make that perfectly clear. Having said that, I will posit that it was also never His implicit plan.
Was Jesus part of God's plan? He was pretty late too wasn't He?
Late? What is late or early for God? I mean, on whose agenda are we, His or ours?
No, I would expect there to be errors in passing down oral tradition, both from the Hebrews and from the Catholics
You are slipping (again). First, Catholics do not go by oral tradition. The Jews do. Secondly, you obviously trust theirs, for the Old Testament was written based on oral tradition, yet you are hinting that you don't. Which is it?
I do believe that God's written word was authored by God Himself and is infallible and not subject to mistake, unlike tradition
Good! then perhaps you can explain variations in the Jewish Scripture -- the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text -- in length and content!
Oral teaching is fine as long as it doesn't change the meaning of scripture
But the Scripture was preserved by oral teachings, and therefore came from oral teachings! You are using circular arguments.
Your tradition disallows you
Your tradition is to trust a book that was part of my tradition which you don't trust.
Then why were so many of these exact writings and teachings rejected as unworthy of inclusion in the Bible?
Because they included teachings that were alien to Apostles and their disciples, and their disciples disciples...Because they contained Gnostic cultism, various pagan beliefs mixed in with sections stolen from the Gospels, and also because authorship of many was uncertain, yet it claimed to be one of the Apostles, and also because the Book of Revelation was difficult and unlike any other book of the Apostles.
Wasn't there a lot of disagreement about what got in? So, who is to know what to trust?
These disagreements were based mostly on uncertainty of authorship and fear that, because we are fallible, we could introduce satanitc verses into the Holy Bible. Oh, satan would have been ecstatic! The Fathers were always cognizant that satan tries to blind us and to twist our senses so that we perceive things differently, so no one rushed.
The message of the Bible remains inerrant. For, when one delves deeper into the "contradictions" that appear in filtered and altered words and paragraphs, one finds that they are not contradictions.
Now, as for the Eucharist, the Orthodox do not go into the mechanics of it. To me, His real presence is in the purity of the bread and wine. In other words, in my limited mind, this becomes possible when they are cleansed by the Holy Spirit to the same degree as His Body and Blood are, and thus they become a substance that is Him in essence.
I would say that by a similar mechanism beyond our comprehension, the word of God remains undefiled despite our corruption and errors which we bring into it by copying and translating, and interpreting.
LOL! How true! :-)
Which Jews? Abraham? No. Jeroboam? Yes.
We are saved by grace through faith. So were the Jews before Jesus. There is no difference.
OK, I think I understand better now, thanks. I would just say that I don't see why God wouldn't have some differences in the gospels such as in your example. God, for His own reasons, took many writers from very different backgrounds and used them. People witness the same events and see them differently. You and I could attend the same baseball game and sit in very different seats. We would both report the same score, but the account of some of the details would be different. Both of us say the complete truth. I don't see why God wouldn't incorporate that into giving the writers the words to say. It's still all true.
So if God says "Do this", you will first have to interpret "what does He really mean"? A literal meaning doesn't require spiritual thought - you follow exactly what is written.
I didn't mean everything in the Bible needs interpretation. When Jesus says "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..." it is fairly obvious that the next words are a story used for illustration, not to be taken as a literal description of an event that happened. When God says "Do this...", I take that pretty literally.
I am merely reporting the chronological history of the teaching of the Gospel. First, it came orally. Can you deny that? ... The Scriptures, though revered, are not ABSOLUTELY necessary to convey the Christian message.
Well, if you're talking about those 30 years or so, then sure. Of course it was also a while before there was wide dissemination. How in the world could you convey the Christian message without using what is in the Bible? Do you think you could make an effective witness by skipping the teachings in the Bible? What would you say instead? If you were witnessing to me over the phone and you said "Christianity teaches that Jesus is the only way to God", I would say you are using scriptures even if you paraphrase it.
I have no problem with an oral teaching that is from the Bible or is at least consistent with it. I do have a problem with teachings that lead away from God or the Bible. One example would be any teaching that discourages the individual's reading of scripture.
We see authority as a three legged chair - Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the teaching Church).
I had never thought of it that way. Is the difference between the last two that one "is" the teachings and the other "are" the people giving the teachings?
The Bible doesn't clearly interpret itself. Look at Acts 8 and the Ethiopian. "Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me?" (Acts 8:30-31).
But, as you like to point out, at that time there was no full Bible yet. So, I don't see how this example refutes Bible self interpretation. Another thing I find interesting is that it was specifically the Spirit who moved Phillip to go and witness to this man. In disagreement with Catholics, we would say that happens all the time, so we evangelize.
We are talking about Salvation. The Eucharist. Baptism. The role of the Church. These are important issues that we disagree on. Ask yourself - what good is a teacher if He leaves His students confused on what He meant? Was Jesus that poor of a teacher? That no one knew if Jesus was God, or whether Jesus was really present at the Eucharist? I find this as a ridiculous assertion.
I agree that we disagree on important issues. I make no assertion that Jesus was a poor teacher. I just believe that Jesus doesn't need the self of man to explain Him outside of Biblical teachings. Of course we disagree on the authority of different men throughout the ages. I do believe the Apostles did have much authority. I don't believe that supernatural abilities, like forgiving sin, are transferable commodities.
I think Jesus gives us the answers in other places in the Bible. At the time, though, I'm sure He did more fully explain many of His teachings to audiences He wanted to understand. Much is not recorded in the Bible, but everything we need is.
As far as I know, these are the pillars of Protestantism (most hold them): The Bible is the sole source of the faith. Man is saved by faith alone. Man is subject to his own private interpretation of Scripture as his ultimate authority.
I would adjust this to say that God is the sole source of faith, the Bible is the authority on earth for us to develop our faith (sanctification). Man is saved by grace through faith, but the faith also comes solely from God. (I admit you will get some Protestant disagreement on this. I think, but am not positive that many Protestants will say that faith comes from man.) We don't believe that we interpret scripture based on ourselves. We believe the living Spirit within us guides us. He knows how we learn and at what rate. And, we are capable of getting some things wrong, but such is the nature of learning and sanctification. All credit goes to the Spirit.
In matters of a "dogmatic teaching", how would one know which of two Protestants was correct? The "holier" one?
No, not the holiest one. How could one know anyway? I may not be sure what you mean by Protestant dogma. We try to always use the Bible to back up any practice or teaching. If you mean, for example, that some Protestants believe in double predestination and some don't, etc. then you would know by which teaching best matched the entirety of the Bible as the Spirit leads you.
So you rely on an error-prone guide to tell you what God teaches mankind? ... God desires that we come to the knowledge of the Truth. How can we do this depending on the "Spirit" alone?
The Spirit is not error-prone. He is perfect. We can make errors, just like individual Saints did. If you believe that the Spirit is God, what is wrong with depending on Him alone? Besides, are you saying that you do not rely on God. I thought it was a mechanical difference that we had. I thought you believed that the Spirit specially empowers a very few, the Church, to instruct you. Our only difference is that you are throwing the Spirit through an extra filter of fallible men. After all, many Catholics do not follow the teachings of the Church.
How do we KNOW the Holy Spirit is speaking to us? If even the greatest of saints CAN be wrong, what hope do I have that I will become more holy, and thus more "correct" in "knowing" God? Is this not a reliance on yourself?
We know it is the Spirit speaking to us if the insight points to God. You can have full hope if you believe that the Spirit Christ gave us is real and will help us. You don't believe the Spirit helps us to the degree we do. We do not rely on ourselves.
FK: "God used fallible men to put pen to page to bring it to us. He used other fallible men to assemble it for all time."
Illogical. Something perfect cannot come from imperfection. This is basic logic. Either God MADE these men to understand infallibly His teachings, or we cannot trust that these men put to paper God's Word.
You have my point backwards. The Bible did not come from men who are fallible. God used the fallible men for labor, but did not let their fallibility interfere with the creation of His word. I'm not sure if you are arguing that the authors of the Bible were perfect.
Does it make sense that God would write an infallible book in a language that no one could understand?
I suppose it makes as much sense as saying a Mass in a language that very few understand.
If our American Forefathers knew enough to create a living interpreter, the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution, the Law of the Land, what makes you think God wasn't smart enough to duplicate that? Did God leave us orphans, not really knowing what His Book meant?
That's what the Holy Spirit is for.
Many Christians have thought that there were two different "Gods" found in these two sections of Scriptures, called Gnostics. What makes you think they are wrong, from Scripture ALONE?
Simple. Jesus taught and quoted from the OT all the time. How could He have done that if the God of the OT was different from the God He was? If they were different Gods then all of Christianity is a fraud. I never thought of the Gnostics as real Christians anyway. I'd lump them in with the JWs.
FK: "The Bible is totally self-contained."
What does that mean?
Just that the Bible contains everything we need to know from God. God will help us to understand that gift through the Spirit. The correct words are already there. We don't need to stretch them out of all possible proportion to arrive at truth ("All" does not mean "All").
That's semantics -- it basically means you cannot fall because God will not let you. And the non-elect, again by God's will, fall and are damned.
I don't see it as semantics, it is an improvement over "once saved always saved". It means that once someone says the sinner's prayer that he is not free to go back to the same sinful life that he came from. And, he is not free to be "faithful" for a while and then turn away permanently. If the salvation was true, then the person will not fall away permanently because God promises not to let that happen.
Semantics is saying that God wills people into hell. God is not the author of evil, and hell was not built for people! God allows some people to to not accept Him and they wind up in hell by their own choosing. With our sin nature at birth, that is what would happen to all of us, but that God spares some and causes His elect to come home, by installing saving grace and faith to some.
How can you do anything on your own when you deny free will? Whether you fall or not fall is God's will according to your belief, so it is wholly irrelevant and indeed meaningless to even speak in terms of what you can or cannot do -- for it is obvious that Protestants believe that man cannot do anything on his own; in other words a captive robot used for one or the other end.
I say that I do no good on my own. But sin, this I do (as a saved person) on my own. Whether or not we are ultimately saved is all God's will because we believe that the Book of Life is already written and God doesn't use erasers. :) We do not experience being "robots" because we do not see the future. But, God already knows every good and evil that we have ever done or will ever do. He causes us to do the good, and allows us to do some evil (sometimes to teach), but it is all already sealed as to whether it will happen.
As a believer, and comparing myself before and after, I know for certain that there is a mountain of "extra" evil that I would have done were it not for God's active presence in my life. I also know that since becoming a believer that a lot of "good" has happened that wouldn't have occurred to me to do as a non-believer. This is "some" evidence of a regenerated and saved heart, at least to me. :)
The sight of the ship is not being saved, but a reasonable hope that you might be saved. And, while nothing you did brought the ship your way, you can do a lot to make your salvation a greater certainty by deliberately moving closer to the ship and cooperating with its crew.
Using the parameters of your story, the Protestant would not say "We are saved!", he would say "Hey, that ship sure looks a lot better than what I've got now, let's move toward it and make sure it's not full of terrorists." IOW, the Protestant seeing potential salvation far away is a seeker being led by God. If God graced him with the ability to swim he might be saved. Not everyone can swim. Once he is plucked out of the water onto a safe ship, he is saved. Then he leads the rest of his life in service to Christ and being sanctified. God will protect him and never allow him to ever be lost at sea again permanently.
BTW, if it had been me who saw the ship, and as an economics major, I would have simply assumed a cigar boat and sped toward the larger ship. Don't worry, I would have picked you up along the way. :)
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.