Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I have said that man does not cooperate with his salvation. But this does not mean that AFTER salvation he is unable to do good. After what I call salvation, God has enabled man to do good in His eyes for the first time. Any misunderstanding is probably due to the God's POV vs. man's POV issue.
I will say again that from man's POV, he can do nothing "good" before salvation. After salvation, man is able to choose to do good, or able to choose to sin. OTOH, from God's POV, all good comes from God, so He gets all the credit and glory for causing all the good we do after salvation. From God's POV, men are still free to sin. When I responded as I did, I assumed you were only talking about doing good, so I did not address the sin side. I believe that I have always said that man is free to sin, but I wasn't sure if you thought that counted as "doing" something.
We have discussed the responsibility and expectation issues at length. I'm not sure what else I can add, but if you have a specific new question, I'll be happy to try to answer.
And who wrote the "answer sheet"?
I would have said I thought your answer would be "fate", based on the other line, but that might be changing. I'll wait to see your response there.
I sense a condescending tone in your reply... Hmm. The problem is that you don't know who the elect are. Thus, we persevere until the end. If God told you that you are of the elect and cannot fail, what is the point of Him telling the EVERYONE to persevere? And who is Jesus telling to persevere? God or man?
I'm sorry if I sounded that way, but it was not my intent. I genuinely take from your answers that you judge God's justice by man's standards, saying that it cannot fall short. You have said this, yes? Therefore, man sets his own standards, and God's standards are measured against them. God's cannot fall short of man's. I have said why I disagree, that they are different standards altogether.
I do not persevere because I'm not sure if I am of the elect. I persevere because God said so, and a member of the elect wants to obey God. I don't see how God is telling EVERYONE, including the lost to persevere. The lost cannot do any good in God's eyes, so they cannot persevere. On who is actually persevering, it can be answered either way, depending on the POV.
Are any of the sheep named "Forest"? It is a parable expressing how willing God is to bring His community to Him.
Yes, one sheep is named Forest. "BAAAAAAA!" See? :) If the parable had spoken in "communal" terms, using words like "herd" a lot, then you might have something. But it does just the opposite, it specifically speaks of individual sheep.
If you are of the Church, it is to the degree that you share the Catholic faith.
And I would say that God's Church is composed of all of God's elect, all believers, no matter their individual denominations, if any. So, every time I disagree with the "Church" I mean the RCC, since I know that to you God's Church and the RCC are one in the same. My, opposite, attitude is that I don't think you need to be a Protestant to be a member of God's Church.
Jesus saw the same attitude [as FK's] in the Pharisees...What was His attitude towards them? I am sorry, but Christ didn't think too highly of presumptuous behavior.
Presumption also goes both ways. Your hierarchy presumes to speak for God, presumes exclusive ownership of God's Church, and presumes to rewrite the Bible in order to conform to Tradition.
And probably from your definition of salvation, which is not a Scriptural one. Salvation is seen as a past, present, and future event. It is not ONLY a past, one-time event. This is probably where a lot of the confusion stems from.
As to works not necessary for salvation, James disagrees:
My brethren, What shall it profit though someone says [that] they have faith and do not have works? Shall faith [without works] be able to save them? James 2:14
Faith without works is dead, so how can one not have works of love and still think they will be saved? Paul agrees by saying that faith, even if it can move mountains, is NOTHING without love.
As to cooperation, I have found the Gospel of John very helpful lately in seeing how a disciple's work IN Christ is not different then Christ's Work IN the Father. That is what is meant by sharing in life, or as Peter calls it, a share in the Divine Nature. I have found that God often points me in the right direction when I have such conversations. I wish I was more grateful sometimes...
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes in me, the works that I do he shall do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do because I go unto my Father." John 14:12
It seems clear to me that with "life" within us, we can do the works of God - to believe in Jesus Christ and obey His commandments.
I will say again that from man's POV, he can do nothing "good" before salvation.
And I will again disagree. When united with Christ, it is not I alone who works, but God working in me. Based on this cooperation (or lack thereof) will I be judged, not on a one-time acceptance of Jesus as my Lord and Savior... But of course, I am using a different sense of "salvation" then you - because that one-time, first time justification is not the end.
We have discussed the responsibility and expectation issues at length.
I still do not understand how a person is judged "on his deeds", knowing that man cannot even cooperate at all with God's graces. You seem to have avoided giving an explanation on this, chalking it up to "God's Judgment" - which appears to be less than man's idea of judgment.
The Scriptures clearly say we can reject the Spirit. Is this not a use of free will? Thus, by NOT rejecting the Spirit, our deeds, our cooperation with the Spirit will be seen as loving and worthy of reward.
you judge God's justice by man's standards, saying that it cannot fall short.
God's standards EXCEEDS man's standards. You seem to say that God's standards do not even REACH man's standards, but that's OK, since God is God, YET, evil is good, justice is injustice, love is selfishness, and all this makes sense because God's ways are not our ways??? This defies any common sense.
Therefore, man sets his own standards, and God's standards are measured against them.
Men don't set the standards. However, we have a good idea of them based on revelation and that God's work in nature mirrors His work in the supernatural. Thus, we are pretty sure that our idea of good is SURPASSED by God, rather than God's idea of good being our idea of EVIL! God doesn't work in opposites, but transcends our understanding. He is BEYOND human mercy. You would have me believe that God's mercy does not even maintain man's idea of mercy!
I do not persevere because I'm not sure if I am of the elect. I persevere because God said so, and a member of the elect wants to obey God.
God said you were of the elect? Do I dare ask how or what Scripture you base this self-determination? I have yet to find your Christian name in the Bible! Is this a tradition? :-)
If the parable had spoken in "communal" terms, using words like "herd" a lot, then you might have something. But it does just the opposite, it specifically speaks of individual sheep.
It does speak of the community. You'd have to go to the Synoptics to find the more individualized message. However, this still does not prove that YOU are one of the individual sheep. Thieves are ALSO in the sheepfold - Christ says so in John 10:1. Only those who hear AND FOLLOW His voice are Christ's sheep. Today, from our point of view.
And I would say that God's Church is composed of all of God's elect, all believers, no matter their individual denominations, if any. So, every time I disagree with the "Church" I mean the RCC, since I know that to you God's Church and the RCC are one in the same. My, opposite, attitude is that I don't think you need to be a Protestant to be a member of God's Church.
God's Church is only the elect? Is that what you are saying? The Bible would disagree with that over and over again...Only the angels during harvest time will select out who is the wheat and who is the weed - AND THE WEEDS WILL BE BURNT! There is no "lesser rewards" for those who are "in" the Church but are weeds...
No, I would admit that being a Protestant is not a necessity to being part of God's Church!!! That is pretty laughable! However, I haven't said that one must be Roman Catholic formally, either.
Presumption also goes both ways. Your hierarchy presumes to speak for God, presumes exclusive ownership of God's Church, and presumes to rewrite the Bible in order to conform to Tradition.
The presumption is based on eyewitness testimony, as the beginning of 1 John opens: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life (for the life is manifested, and we also saw [it] and bear witness and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father and appeared unto us); that which we have seen and heard we declare unto you, that ye also may have communion with us; and truly our communion [is] with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be fulfilled" 1 John 1:1-4
If you believe that the Scriptures are from God, then you'd be hard pressed to deny that the Church is NOT from God! You can't have one while denying the other.
Regards
Thomas Merton assigns that to our vestigial pride. Unless we humble ourselves completely, we cannot achieve sainthood. Any vestige of pride and arrogance is enough.
One of our parishoners once observed that the priest in question was "a good man" but she said "when I look at him I see [priest's first name]." In other words, his personality was too strong still for us to see an icon of Christ in him. He simply drew too much attention to himself.
That seems like a little bit of a stretch to me. The passage does not say that only "Holy men" can interpret scripture, it says that prophecy was only given by Holy men. There is also the matter of "private interpretation". I would agree that no scripture should be "privately interpreted", and that brings us back to the problem of our disagreement about to whom the Spirit will speak. I believe that God does guide the "little people" like me. :)
The question, FK, is whether whose pre-fab answers you are going to trust -- those of the Fathers of the Church from the earliest centuries, or those of the Reformation's fathers (not directly appealed to as authority, of course, but passed off as being understandings that each person just happens to arrive at through independent reading of Scripture...)
I do agree it is a matter of whom to trust. And of course I would disagree if anyone made an assertion that any interpretation challenging that of the fallible men of the Church is automatically private and therefore error.
Much of the reason I find myself currently distrusting the hierarchy of the Church, and its "ancestors", is the degree to which power has been declared transferred away from God and to men. Of course the Bible is declared to agree with this, since the recipients of the power are the only ones authorized to declare what the Bible says. That seems to work out pretty well for all those who have the power. :)
Another main problem I have is with the declared interpretation of scripture. I am thoroughly convinced that if the Church's interpretation of the scripture is correct, then the Bible is substantially incomprehensible to anyone without that interpretation. It is like a secret code, and only the men in power have the decoder. God does not have this decoder (such that He would share it with any of the little people) because the men in power have declared that God has transferred it to them.
Since it is true that the reach of the Bible has long ago outstretched the reach of the RC and Orthodox Churches, and God knew that this would happen, I just can't bring myself to believe that right now uncounted millions of people have in their hands an essentially useless revelation of God's word. I can't believe that is God's will. I cannot answer the question of why God would inspire His written word indecipherably to all but a small few.
Of course, my side uses interpretation also, but as I examine the degree to which words must take on new meanings and whole concepts, across many passages of scripture, must be interpreted counterintuitively to the actual text, I see no comparison between the sides. My "advantage" is that I don't "need" the Bible to match anything outside of the Bible because I don't think there is anything else of equal authority. This is not true of the Church.
And I don't think it is a matter of what came first, scriptural Tradition or extra-scriptural Tradition. Many, many things have been declared infallible since those in power held the Bible in their hands. I do not find it credible that absolutely everything that the Church holds infallible today was well known and widely established before the Bible was assembled.
So I think that you really nailed the heart of it when you brought up the issue of trust. And, I can fully understand how anyone could trust the Church. There is a lot of history, and there are a lot of like-minded people who agree. I do respect that. And I do respect that you reached a point in your life when you felt truly led to re-evaluate. I suppose all any of us can do is to follow the lead we believe has been placed on our hearts.
"The passage does not say that only "Holy men" can interpret scripture, it says that prophecy was only given by Holy men."
Do you suppose that the Apostles wrote their works in a vacuum? Do you not suppose that various faithful would ask St. Paul: "Could you explain what you meant when you wrote _______?" What was St. Paul talking about all night when Eutychus fell asleep in the window?
Surely you don't think that St. Paul would respond, "Well, my friend, it's Scripture, so your interpretation of it is as good as mine... just read it and figure it out by refering to other Scriptures, with the Holy Spirit to guide you."??
Of course not. The Apostles were actively preaching and teaching, and the people that they preached to and taught did preaching and teaching of their own.
This is why I, like a stuck record, keep asking Protestants to show me evidence from the early centuries of the Church that there was serious controversy about the things that Protestantism says the Church invented or perverted.
So many of the things that you disagree with in what we believe have no controversy associated with them. Take for example your own belief that infant baptism is not an Apostolic practice -- where is the record of the controversy over this when infant baptism was introduced. Where is the controversy over prayers to saints, asking them to pray for us, veneration of relics, the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, etc.?
If these things were all perversions, surely the teaching of the Apostles would have had enough staying power to last at least a couple of centuries, and the "true followers of the Apostles" would have raised a holy ruckus over these things. Yet, all we hear is historical static.
Some say that this is because the Church suppressed it -- but then we would have the Church's record of *its* side of the story, telling about these heretic proto-Baptists and the crazy things they believed! :-)
Again, historical static is what we actually have.
So, I do not think at all that we can separate the holy men who wrote the Scriptures from their interpretation and explanation of those Scriptures -- in short, from their preaching.
LOL! I like the color commentary in the set-up :) Anyway, well if that's what you meant, then what was your point in rhetorically asking "who would sleep with another man's wife" in the first place? I was just trying to derive what your point was. I still don't know.
How old are you?
I am thirty-something for 23 more days. :) or should that be :(
(By my comment, I just meant that I had plans. :)
Oh brother. This from a Sola Scriptura character? Where does it say that "Joseph knew Mary"? Don't go beyond what the Scriptures say - what ever happened to that?
"Oh brother" is right on point! :) The scriptures say that Jesus had named brothers, sisters, a named mother, and a father, all within two verses (Matt. 13:55-56). I understand that the plain meaning of these verses must be interpreted away by the Church to preserve Tradition. I would not even know how to argue that they "knew" each other, outside of scripture. That is, unless common sense counts as an argument. If common sense was an argument then it would also be my ally.
Woman who are betrothed to be married always asks such questions like "duh, how am I going to have a child - I am going to be wed soon..." What sort of argument is that? The response of Mary would be "Wow, that's wonderful. Thanks and praise to God". Not "how can that be...?" A person in a normal relationship does not ask how a child will come into existence...
You think that's what Mary's response would be. Really? How many young women do you suppose expected angels to appear before them announcing a coming birth? Even if Mary was intimately familiar with scriptures she would know this was not an every day occurrence. I find it absolutely incredible that she would have reacted matter-of-factly. You don't appear to accept that the passage says she was afraid. I would have been too!
As I have said, if an angel appeared before me, my gut reaction would be that whatever the announcement was, would be happening sooner rather than at some indeterminate time in the future. IOW, why appear now to tell me this if you're talking about a year from now, or whatever? I would presume there would be a purpose to the timing.
And the question for you - why are you arguing this point anyway? Does it crush a Protestant belief or do you just enjoy arguing about Christ's Mother?
That's a fair question, and frankly, I really don't have a dog in this fight. If the Bible said anywhere that Mary was ever-virgin that would be fine with me. I don't know that it would challenge any of my other beliefs. However, I am always interested in learning more examples of when the words of scripture are suppressed in favor of a Traditional position. If I had never heard of this as an issue of contention and just read the scriptures, there would be no doubt in my mind that Jesus had blood siblings. And I claim that is a genuine statement because I don't need it to prove or support anything else. I don't "care" one way or the other. But the Church must care, so it must defend another interpretation that is contrary to the plain meaning of the words.
Neither of those books were disputed.
There is no transcription error, the blood is in Col.1:14.
If multiple authorship is possible, then transcription error is not impossible.
No one disputes the authorship that Paul wrote both books.
You aptly observe that in this case the theology is the same, i.e. unaffected by the addition (because the concepts contained in these verses are reinforced elsewhere), the very existence of such discrepancies shows human corruption of Scripture
No, without blood the verse is in error and there cannot be errors in the Bible text, if it is to be considered the Bible.
Any proof of this?
The King James translators did have a high regard for the LXX (proof that it was a fraud came out a few years after the publication of the King James), but their primary reference was to the Masoratic Hebrew Text comparing various other translations, including the LXX (3rd century AD)
But I digress. This passage is one of those relatively rare examples of where the Textus Receptus does *not* follow the Byzantine majority Greek text -- and where there is no difference between the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts. The phrase "through his blood" is found only in a minority of manuscripts -- the majority of Byzantine miniscules do not contain it.
And like those other cases (Acts 8:37, 1Jn.5:7), the Latin preserved the correct reading.
You will note that the Majority Text compilers place this phrase in Colossians in parentheses -- indicating that it is *not* a Majority text reading, but one they feel it is important to include, whether from theological motivations, out of respect for the Vulgate/TR tradition, or because the reading is found in a sizable minority of Byzantine MSS.
The TR is not a majority text, it is the Received text one considered the pure text, put together by Erasmus, Stephenus, and Elizer (who coined the term) and Beza.
The most influential textual tradition in which "through his blood" was found is actually consistently found is (drum roll please)... the Latin Vulgate. So I find it hard to find any nefarious Catholic machinations at work here. You certainly can't blame Jerome for it, as far as I can tell. I would guess that Jerome was using a variant Greek manuscript into which it had been inserted.
Jerome got this one right, like he did with 1Jn.5:7.
However, the Douey Rheims left the blood out despite it being in the Vulgate.
My guess is that the Jesuit Bible was just referring to a different Greek manuscript -- one that actually was in the majority tradition.
Yes, the Jesuits were following the textual tradition that rejects even the Vulgate if the Vulgate is correct.
The phrase would appear to have been inserted into Colossians (whether accidentally or intentionally) in order to parallel the wording in Ephesians 1:7. If the effect was to minimize the doctrine that is concerned, Ephesians 1:7 would have had to be doctored also -- and I am unaware of any textual tradition of that verse that does not contain "through his blood."
No one added anything, someone subtracted the blood.
Like they did in leaving out 1Jn.5:7.
Satan doesn't have to remove every correct verse, only enough to create doubt (Yea, hath God said?).
In any event, with or without the phrase, the theology is the same, since the phrase stands as is in Ephesians.
No, because the verse in Col.1:14 without the blood is incorrect, since there is no redemption without blood without shedding of blood is no remission (Heb.10:22)
I have it in my copy of the Vulgate, but it is not in the Jesuit Douey-Rheims.
Eusebius did not even believe in Orthodox view of the Trinity, so who cares what he believed in anything?
Now, since there was medical reason for waiting 8 days (production of vit. K that allows blood to congeal, is at its peak on the 8th day).
The circumcision did not save the infant.
No evidence that David circumcised his infant son who died, but who he knew he would see again (2Sam.12)
The reason why Limbo infantum even became a hypothesis of the Church is because the Church was not certain that unbaptized infants go to heaven. The current Catholic Catechism takes the patristic view shared with the Orthodox Church's unbroken tradition, that we do not know, but that we trust God's mercy.
Well that is a good thing to trust in, since water Baptism is a meaningless act on a child.
The infant is saved because of God's grace since the child has no sin imputed to him and is therefore under no condemnation (Rom.5:13).
He dies because he has an OSN, but he has not actual sins on his soul.
God is now free to impute Christ's righteousness to the infant so he is justified before God.
They are not accountable No they are not, but unbaptized infants are not Christians.
Baptized infants aren't Christians either! LOL!
What happens to unbpatized infants is beyond our knowledge or comprehension.
No, only the RCC have made it confusing by making infant baptism an issue for salvation when it isn't.
The 'revisions' that were done, were not revisions of the text, but upgrading of the language and correction of printing errors.
Now, if you are going to claim imperfection of the King James, you should at least point out where it is in error.
The 'originals' are gone so they have no more authority over anything!
What we have for authority is the translation that came from those Originals.
Do you have any examples you would like to share with us, where the King James was in error? I am pretty certain I did not say it was in error. I'm surprised you would think that. I believe the KJV is the version that is less susceptible to doctrinal error than any other version in popular use by English-speaking peoples. And the role of scripture is to tell us an accurate history and to accurately convey the doctrine embedded in that scripture. No English bible has equalled it, IMO.
Well, if there are no errors, then it is a perfect translation.
The translators did not know they would produce the final English translation, but they did.
The King James Bible we have today is the same as the original 1611 with changes made in spelling and grammer but not the text itself.
You can buy an old Tyndale and one with modern spelling and they are both the same.
"The King James translators did have a high regard for the LXX"
That's all I was saying. There are any number of things that in the Hebrew are supposedly ambiguous, but that in the LXX are clear. A good example is the verse in Isaiah that most modern translations use "a young woman will conceive." The LXX is unequivocal -- "parthenos" cannot be translated in any way other than as a physical virgin. As familiar with the LXX as they were, they couldn't have helped but have it assist them in their translation of the Hebrew. It has always been my impression, although I've never made a study of it, that the KJV translators were more likely to look to the Greek to illuminate the Hebrew than they were to look to the Vulgate -- *even though the Vulgate was translated from Hebrew* (except for the Psalms, which remained translated from the Greek for the sake of liturgical familiarity and continuity with the Old Latin versions.)
With regard to the rest of your comments, you are certainly free to believe that the TR is the only true Greek text of the KJV (of course, then one must ask "which" TR edition...)
I am the first to say that it is certainly possible for a translation to contain more correct and original readings than does an original language text (otherwise we Orthodox wouldn't consider the LXX to be authoritative.)
I personally believe that in general, whatever the majority of Byzantine MSS say, that is the most likely reading. But then, I am Orthodox.
It seems that hard-line defenders of the TR want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to appeal to the fact that their favorite readings are, by and large, attested to by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts (i.e. miniscules of the Byzantine text-type), and yet, when that same standard leads to questioning a *very few* passages in the various TR family that is at variance with the majority Byzantine text, then suddenly a minority (even from a translated version) reading is just fine.
I certainly have never scratched out that phrase in Col 1:14 in any of my dozen or so copies of the KJV. It is correct theology, whether it is found only in Ephesians or both in Ephesians and Colossians. The fact that a majority of Greek manuscripts do not contain the "blood" phrase in Col 1:14 makes me inclined to think that it was added in the minority textual tradition -- but this cannot be definitively proven, any more than anyone can definitively prove that the majority Byzantine text represents an omission from the original reading.
If the statement "in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins" is incorrect theology, I'm missing something. In Romans 8:23 St. Paul talks about the redemption of the body, with nary a mention of blood anywhere in the passage. Does this mean that this passage is incorrect as well?
Again, I can respect a Protestant position that basically says that the TR is the result of inspired transmission, compilation, and editing. It is interesting that this inspired transmission came through many generations of Eastern Orthodox copyiests, through the compilation and editing of an unrepentant Catholic -- Erasmus, and includes selected Latin Vulgate readings where Erasmus preferred them.
But then as an Orthodox Christian, I have a very different take on the transmission of the texts, since those passing them on and copying them were of the same faith that we Orthodox hold today. Preservation is easy to believe in when one has confidence in the theology and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church doing the transmitting. Even with the Old Testament, we see ourselves in continuity with the Hebrew faith, and see the translation *by Jews* before the time of Christ of the OT into Greek as being the product of our same faith.
Preservation through generations of men who did not share your beliefs and who were, by your lights, misinterpreting the Bible grossly -- now that takes real faith, and I salute you for it!
You are correct. I checked my 1950 printing of the 1826 Douay-Rheims (one of my prize possessions -- I use it to taunt Catholics on how they used to use pretty good English in their translations, unlike the schlock they put out now), and it is not there. But it is in the Clementine Vulgate. Interesting.
The Johannine comma is put into parentheses and a footnote is added, basically saying that few MSS have this phrase, but the editors quickly note that if the Pope says it belongs, it belongs!
You would have the only evidence I use, the scriptures. Of course since the Church's interpretation of scriptures bears little resemblance to that of Protestants in general, then it is to be expected that you would not accept this as evidence. I'm afraid that's all I have, or need.
Between two Protestants, when you say "x" and it disagrees with another Protestant, then is the "Spirit" who tells you otherwise lying? Or is HIS "Spirit" lying?
I suppose that sometimes we do the same thing that you and the Orthodox did, part company with mutual respect. I believe that the Spirit brings along the elect at different rates and in different ways. This is what sanctification is for. If two Protestants are at different places in their respective walks, then it should not be any surprise that they would disagree on some things. I don't even think that is "bad", in and of itself. So for example, in no way does it defeat the Reformed view that I was wrong about OSAS. You have used the same argument in defending Catholicism in the face of actions taken by certain priests and bishops.
WHERE IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH? Deny it all you want, but it is in the Bible.
Oh, I know what the scripture says, but shockingly we disagree on the interpretation. :) I do not believe that the RCC is the pillar and foundation of truth because the Bible doesn't say that. The Bible talks about the Church of God, which could mean just that or it could refer to God Himself. Even if the former, we don't agree on what God's Church is.
Are you aware of how Christians came to the belief of the Trinity? Do you think the Scriptures alone told us?
I don't know who was the first to make a big deal about it, but I don't think it matters because the basis of the Trinity is fully in scripture. God the Father openly claimed to be God. So did the Son. Then we are told to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I'm sure there are plenty of cross-references that when all put together make it clear that the idea of the Trinity is absolutely Biblical. I do not believe that the Trinity is extra-Biblical Tradition.
You, for example, think that man is evil and totally corrupt and can do nothing to cooperate with God's grace, nor can he refuse the Holy Spirit. Thus, you read over passages that deny that or twist them to mean something else.
I don't agree that this is true, but even if it was, this is different from Catholicism HOW? :) "Oh, yes, well God gave all the power to the RCC to interpret scripture." [Really, when did He do that?] "Oh, well you see it's all clear in the Bible. We interpret that God gave us all the power, therefore it is so, etc."
Thus, Scriptures alone don't do much good by themselves.
No, I think they do perfectly by themselves, but you're right that correct interpretation is the key. Some Christians have an outside agenda that needs supporting, (thus tipping the scales on interpretation), and some do not.
Have you not argued with another Protestant over whether Baptism is necessary for Salvation? The two of you will post verses that prove your points and you will both call each other wrong.
Actually, I never have, either on this thread or anywhere else. I suppose that it's possible that it will happen someday, but I'm not worried. Catholics and Orthodox don't agree on everything either. I don't see why it's a big deal. I don't feel obligated to defend all non-Catholics in the same way you should not feel obligated to defend all non-Protestants.
[continuing] And neither will ever know who REALLY is correct...
Boy do you have a gloomy outlook. :) I can only surmise that you do not believe that sanctification is real (at least for Protestants), or that people actually grow in their faiths during their lives. I suppose with a hierarchy that dictates all of your beliefs to you, there might not be much room to grow.
They did not have to look at the LXX, they could have looked at Matthew which defines what is meant in Isaiah.
With regard to the rest of your comments, you are certainly free to believe that the TR is the only true Greek text of the KJV (of course, then one must ask "which" TR edition...)
I believe the TR is the perfect line of the Greek Text.
Where the various editions differ, the correct reading is found in the King James Bible.
I am the first to say that it is certainly possible for a translation to contain more correct and original readings than does an original language text (otherwise we Orthodox wouldn't consider the LXX to be authoritative.)
Amen.
I personally believe that in general, whatever the majority of Byzantine MSS say, that is the most likely reading. But then, I am Orthodox.
Amen.
It seems that hard-line defenders of the TR want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to appeal to the fact that their favorite readings are, by and large, attested to by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts (i.e. miniscules of the Byzantine text-type), and yet, when that same standard leads to questioning a *very few* passages in the various TR family that is at variance with the majority Byzantine text, then suddenly a minority (even from a translated version) reading is just fine.
That is why I am not a TR man.
I am a King James man.
The TR is the stream from which the pure word of God flowed into the King James.
The translators picked from not only the TR, but many translations, the perfect reading.
I certainly have never scratched out that phrase in Col 1:14 in any of my dozen or so copies of the KJV. It is correct theology, whether it is found only in Ephesians or both in Ephesians and Colossians. The fact that a majority of Greek manuscripts do not contain the "blood" phrase in Col 1:14 makes me inclined to think that it was added in the minority textual tradition -- but this cannot be definitively proven, any more than anyone can definitively prove that the majority Byzantine text represents an omission from the original reading.
No, but that goes for all textual differences.
What has to be looked at is the reading itself and wheather one believes in Divine Preservation of the text.
If one does, then one is not going to accept the idea that textual errors were allowed to creep into the text.
Col.1:14 is an error and it contradicts Heb.9.
But Satan is always trying to get the blood out of the Bible, as did Cain when he rejected the blood offering. (Gen.4)
If the statement "in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins" is incorrect theology, I'm missing something. In Romans 8:23 St. Paul talks about the redemption of the body, with nary a mention of blood anywhere in the passage. Does this mean that this passage is incorrect as well?
That redemption is dealing with the Resurrection body, due to the blood redemption of the soul.(Rom.3:25)
('to wit the redemption of our body'8:23). Romans 8 is dealing with a saved man, not a lost one.
Again, I can respect a Protestant position that basically says that the TR is the result of inspired transmission, compilation, and editing. It is interesting that this inspired transmission came through many generations of Eastern Orthodox copyiests, through the compilation and editing of an unrepentant Catholic -- Erasmus, and includes selected Latin Vulgate readings where Erasmus preferred them.
Well, Erasmus was a Catholic who was very critical of the abuses of Rome and died among AnaBaptists.
He was a scholar of first rank and even though offered positions of power by the Papacy, he refused them all.
In fact, the saying that Tyndale used that a 'plowboy would know the scriptures better then the scholars'I think may have been originally said by Erasmus.
But then as an Orthodox Christian, I have a very different take on the transmission of the texts, since those passing them on and copying them were of the same faith that we Orthodox hold today. Preservation is easy to believe in when one has confidence in the theology and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church doing the transmitting. Even with the Old Testament, we see ourselves in continuity with the Hebrew faith, and see the translation *by Jews* before the time of Christ of the OT into Greek as being the product of our same faith.
The Jews that translated portions of the LXX into Greek were apostate.
The LXX we have today is the work of Origen.
Preservation through generations of men who did not share your beliefs and who were, by your lights, misinterpreting the Bible grossly -- now that takes real faith, and I salute you for it!
Well, thank you.
But the proof is in the pudding, as one may say, and the fruit that the TR translated bibles produced is clear proof that they were blessed by God.
Amen.
The Johannine comma is put into parentheses and a footnote is added, basically saying that few MSS have this phrase, but the editors quickly note that if the Pope says it belongs, it belongs!
In this case the Pope is right! LOL!
OK, but this doesn't answer my question about on what basis does man decide to accept God's gift of faith? Is it man-generated faith, as I have alleged? Or, is it rationalization and logic? Or, is it personal trust in a close friend who is a believer, etc.? If everyone has all the grace and information they need to accept Christ, then why does one man do it and another not do it? (This is ringing a bell for me, so maybe we've already covered this. Sorry, if true.)
You are forgetting that the Bible clearly expects man to respond at some level to God's gifts. It is MAN who will be judged based on what he does - not on what God does.
Well, I'm not forgetting that we have an honest disagreement about the use of the word "judgment" in scriptures, at least at times. I do not believe man will be judged for salvation based on what he does. The elect were selected before any of them were born, so what could they add or subtract from that based on anything they ever did? As you know, I believe that sometimes in the Bible, the reference to judgment is talking about rewards in heaven apart from salvation.
Yes, I fully agree. The God of the OT is exactly the same God as in the NT.
Yes they are.
There is no transcription error, the blood is in Col.1:14
Not in most Greek sources.
No, without blood the verse is in error and there cannot be errors in the Bible text, if it is to be considered the Bible
Well, I got news for you: try reading more than one version of the dozens and dozens of redacted and edited versions of the Bible and you would be amazed what's in them or what's not in them all!
Or you can just stay where you are. There is some comfort in denial. BTW, shhh, the earth is really not flat.
Precisely. Eusebius was advising the believers not to follow Jewish practices because they were unrelated to baptism in the physicial sense.
No evidence that David circumcised his infant son who died, but who he knew he would see again (2Sam.12)
Of course he did. Jews believe in Shoel, or Hades, a place where all dead souls go, not just the righteous. You are interpreting Judaism of 1000 BC with Christian notions of heaven and hell. Way off the target, friend.
Well that is a good thing to trust in, since water Baptism is a meaningless act on a child
Meaningless? Did Jesus Christ say "Baptise adults in the name of the Father...?" I would rather "err" on the side of "meaningless" in this instance and leave the rest to God.
The infant is saved because of God's grace
And an adult is saved because of God's grace too ! -- regardless of how smart or Bible-read he or she is, or how much (s)he believes, or how charitable (s)he is. It's always God's grace, regardless.
God is now free to impute Christ's righteousness to the infant so he is justified before God
God is always free. He does not have to depend on our state of intellect to save our miserable souls, or on our "acceptance" of Him as believing adults.
Through baptism, we are adopted into Christ, not intellectually but mystically. We do not "adopt" God into us. God adopts us into Him. And, that, dear friend, does not depend on us at all. :)
Baptized infants aren't Christians either! LOL!
Christ commanded us to baptize everyone, and all people who are baptized are adopted into Christ, and are therefore Christians. Of course, if you grow up baptized but refuse God, do not repent as you continue in life, what good is your baptism going to be? It is not the intellect that makes baptism valid, but it is our faith that makes us stay baptized in Christ when we are old enough and willing to repent. Infants dont have to worry about staying in Christ once they are brought into Christ, because they cannot sin yet.
Your theology holds God's grace hostage by our intellectual ability to "accept" God when we are ready. It places our intellect over God, so that He "may" be free to bestow His grace upon us. Gees, that is really an upside-down theology.
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.