GOD HIMSELF has revealed specific teachings to the Church to safeguard and pass down to the next generation. Some of these teachings that we now have came from these first Apostles. Other teachings we have received are changeable, ones that have been given to us as ecclesiastical commands that we, as Christians, bind ourselves to. The Church readily identifies the difference. When the Church declares "this is from God", we believe it because and ONLY because God has promised to guide and guard His revelations from human corruption. Consider so many of our teachings go back nearly 2000 years, even when culture has tried to sweep them away (refering specifically to abortion and contraception)
I'm curious as to what you would tell an adult Catholic who had been Baptized in a Catholic Church as an infant, who came to you and said he wanted to be Baptized by immersion as a believer because he felt that it more closely matched how Jesus did it.
Some lady wanted to do that 2 years ago. We told her that we believe in ONE baptism. Nothing further is gained by being baptised again, nor is sin remitted AGAIN through this ritual. It is not the ritual itself that is important, but the invisible thing that happens THROUGH the ritual, or BEHIND the ritual. God's grace coming to us in a very special, unique, and unrepeatable (for us) way. We DO conduct "conditional" baptisms for those who are not sure they were baptised - which we did last year once. Records get lost and parents do not always relinguish the information, esp. if they are rabid anti-Catholics who disapprove of their adult children's desire to become Catholic (almost half our class is being ostracized by their parents... being Catholic is not easy)
If it would even occur to you to compare the Bible to any other book, then that tells me something.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Bible. But when I first began to come back to religion, I didn't take anyone's word that the Bible was from God! I had to "prove" it for myself, look at the evidence. Believe it or not, I am a non-conformist, I don't readily follow other people's point of view, unless I believe it myself. Thus, I didn't approach the Bible with the presumption that it was the Word of God. Lots of people make similar claims for their own "sacred" books - Koran, Book of Mormon, and the Hindus have their own sacred books. (forget the spelling!)
God, by Himself, caused the Bible to come into existence.
Says who? You? How did you come to that conclusion? "God told you?" See where that leads you?
The only "vision" I have is in the Bible. Remember, your "vision" needs severe corrective lenses. :)
YOUR interpretation of it is from a different reference point then the first group of Christians. My "vision" WAS the original vision...If you believe it needs correction, perhaps you should look to history and figure out which "vision" came first? Which "vision" was closest to the original writers of the Scriptures? Was your "vision" readily believed by other Christians throughout 1500 years?
In your example, I would say you are wrong because God did not move the Church to include it in the Bible, and because it contains contradictions to other scripture that God did move the Church to include in the Bible
But you are now using the Church as a reference to determine what is Scripture! That's fine, but why do you then refuse their interpretation of these very same writings? What reference did THEY use? When they read ALL of these books, didn't they have an internal paradigm, a "lense" through which they viewed God's revelation? With this teaching internally inside of them, they could figure out, "no, Thomas doesn't teach what we know. No., the Acts of Paul doesn't teach what we believe...Yes, 2 Peter teaches what we teach. That is Scripture."
Regards
From what I know, I would give you all an 'A' on abortion, but as to contraception, you can't tell me that Church enforcement of its teachings hasn't been significantly affected by culture.
Some lady wanted to do that [believer's Baptism] 2 years ago. We told her that we believe in ONE baptism. Nothing further is gained by being baptised again, nor is sin remitted AGAIN through this ritual.
Thanks for relaying the story. One thing that we agree on is that it is unnecessary to repeat Baptism. ... I have never heard of "conditional" Baptisms, but I can see the legitimate need, given certain circumstances. ... I am sorry to hear that so many in your class have been ostracized by their parents. In all honesty, I wouldn't "approve", but I wouldn't turn my back on my child over it. That's ridiculous.
FK: "God, by Himself, caused the Bible to come into existence."
Says who? You? How did you come to that conclusion? "God told you?" See where that leads you?
Yes, I see where that leads me. The only other possible conclusion is that man had a part in causing the Bible to come into existence. This would subject it to error. I do not believe that man can simply choose to be perfect. It sounds like you do. The only way the Bible can be inerrant is if God was in full control of its creation. If you believe that perfect, sinless men also threw in their own two cents then we just disagree.
If you believe [my vision] needs correction, perhaps you should look to history and figure out which "vision" came first?
The vision of the Gnostics was before yours, and look how well that turned out.
Which "vision" was closest to the original writers of the Scriptures?
That is debatable, but probably unknowable as between us because we couldn't begin to agree on proper sourcing.
Was your "vision" readily believed by other Christians throughout 1500 years?
Augustine would certainly be on board for some of it, which tells me there must have been many others, to varying degrees. We do have 500 years to our credit, which includes the modern age, an age I believe has exponentially increased in critical theological thinking. It has thus, "withstood the test of time".
FK: "In your example, I would say you are wrong because God did not move the Church to include it in the Bible, and because it contains contradictions to other scripture that God did move the Church to include in the Bible."
But you are now using the Church as a reference to determine what is Scripture!
Not at all, see the words that I used. I know that members of the Church were the physical assemblers of the Bible, but in what I said, God is the only real actor. I do not believe that the assemblers had any independent voice on their own as to what would ultimately become the Bible. I believe it was all God's doing.