Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
20,000+ contrary interpretations
= = =
Forgot one again . . .
20,001+ contrary interpretations. Let's not leave the Romans out--they have abundant examples in their long history.
I agree, but that's probably because we are using the term 'Ecumenicism' in different ways.
What exactly do you think it means to be "perfected in unity"?(John 17:23)
-A8
That's just a nutty slander, A8.
And there is no "infinite regress." It ends in the word of God being rightly divided by men of faith. It does not end in men of faith rightly dividing the word of God.
That's a big difference.
"...The authority (of Scripture) is found in the sovereign God Himself. The God who "breathed out" the words through human writers stands behind every statement, every doctrine, every promise and every command written in the Scripture..."
It is all there. God's will is not so difficult to discern that we need massive overlays of men and magisteriums to interpret it and dispense it, as if it could be bartered away for a price.
"Buy the truth, and sell it not" -- Proverbs 23:23
"It is all there. God's will is not so difficult to discern..."
______________________________
What did Jesus say?
John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
Jesus didn't mention any middle men who would think for us.
The number is probably much higher. Every one has his own interpretation of passages of Scripture; that is in large part why there are so many different sects and independent groups. If you start putting all the permutations and combinations together the number is probably in the millions.
It ends in the word of God being rightly divided by men of faith. It does not end in men of faith rightly dividing the word of God.
Using the passive voice instead of the active voice does not make the act different. The notion that it does is mind-boggling. What you said is equivalent to saying: "The cake is being cut by her, *not* she is cutting the cake." Do you really believe that those are two different acts??
It is all there. God's will is not so difficult to discern that we need massive overlays of men
So why all the Protestant sects? It is the big elephant in the room that you are denying when you state that we don't need any men or magesterium to interpret it.
-A8
The truth is found in Scripture, not in men.
So why all the Protestant sects?
The truth is not in all of them, but it is among them. Our task is to discern it, with eyes and ears given by God for that which He has purposed from before the foundation of the world.
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -- Matthew 7:13-20"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
There aren't. That's just something Catholics want to believe and make them feel that having other men interpret for them, is better than a holy priesthood made up of believers.
and here come the lawyers, adding opinion after opinion, until you get massive texts of legalese in which no one can make sense, then here come the pharisees to not teach us anything, just lay burdens upon us (now I know you'll like this Quizx!)
If the buck-stopping point is the Word of God being interpreted by men, that is not "Scripture interprets scripture". That is man interpreting Scripture.
A8: So why all the Protestant sects?
Dr.E: The truth is not in all of them, but it is among them. Our task is to discern it, with eyes and ears given by God for that which He has purposed from before the foundation of the world.
Notice that you didn't answer the question. Telling us that the truth is in all of them does not tell us why there are many instead of one, since (in your opinion) we do not need men or magisterium to interpret Scripture.
-A8
How is your end of the project going. Take a breather once in awhile; it helps especially when digesting all that verbose rhetoric from some of the writings of "the Fathers". I have only the Book of Acts and the Epistles left, then it will be your turn to begin posting what you have learned from "the Fathers". The List of what we have thus far is below:
1] The Books of the Old Testament --- No Evidence
2] The Apocryphal Books --- No Evidence
3] The Gospels --- No Evidence
4] Book of Acts of the Apostles --- searching now
5] The Epistles --- next
6] The Patriarchs ---
-A8
"Comprehensive" can be relative.
Teleios 8:67,1161 tel'-i-os Adjective Definition brought to its end, finished wanting nothing necessary to completeness perfect that which is perfect consummate human integrity and virtue of men full grown, adult, of full age, mature
Just one, and of course.
I'm gonna put Uncle Chip right on it.
Telling us that the truth is in all of them
I do not believe the "truth is in all of them."
I said the truth is among the various Protestant faiths, but many are misguided or flat-out wrong.
All believers who possess Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are among God's elect. That faith is evidence of their salvation, not a cause of it. That's what Scripture tells us.
God's sheep are found in many disparate locations. Even among the RC church, no doubt. But I assume God will further amplify their understanding and eventually bring them into a more Scripturally-sound, Reformed Christianity.
Just so, but the sheep which are Christ's are one flock, with one Shepherd. It's one church. Not too many Christians appreciate the Shema as Jewish people do, but it is meant for all Israel.
The Whole Shema in Deut.6:4-9:
4- "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD;
5- and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
6- And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart;
7- and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
8- And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
9- And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
I have more evidence showing that Peter was never in or about Rome to add to your exhaustive research!
1. Mentioned before (posts 1438 & 1450)....Peter commissioned to be Apostle to the Circumcised [Matthew 10:5-6][Galatians 2:7-9].
2. Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans He had been chosen to bring them the "Good News"....not Peter. [Romans 15:16]. If Peter had already been in Rome.....can you see Paul writing this????
3. Paul himself told the Romans it would be He....not Peter who would found their church [Romans 1:11]. The letter to the Romans is thought by scholars to be written in about 55/56 A.D. and here Paul is saying that he wishes to establish a harvest among them. Does this sound strange to you if Peter had been shepherding the Roman Church for 15 or 20 years at this point?
4. In addition, Paul explains, He does not want to build upon another man's foundation [Romans 15:20]. Again, would he be saying this to the Romans if Peter was already there.....and in charge?
5. Already mentioned (posts 1438 & 1450) in Romans 16 Paul salutes many folks in Rome....Peter not included. Where is Peter?
6. When Paul was taken prisoner to Rome....some four years later, the brethren of Rome came to meet him [Acts 28:15]. Where is Peter?????
7. When Paul got to Rome He summoned the Jews [Acts 28:17] and they had heard little about this new sect and wanted to hear more [verses 21-22]. Don't you think that by 60 A.D. that the Apostle Peter, being a Jew himself as well as their designated Apostle, would have mentioned something about Our Saviour......if he had been in and about Rome?
8. Paul remained in Rome in his own house for 2 years [Acts 28:30] writing four more books (mentioned earlier in 1438 & 1450) never once mentioning Peter.
9. He was released but back again as a prisoner about four years later(A.D. 65). At his trial it is noted in [II Timothy 4:16] that no man stood with me....all men in Rome forsook me and he prayed to God that they be forgiven. Well, I guess that Peter must have forsaken Paul.....if he had been in and about Rome.....at that time!
10. Paul says in II Timothy 4:11 that at this time only Luke is with him. Where is Peter?????
Paul wrote to Rome, was in Rome, wrote at least four.... maybe six epistles from Rome, and at the end not only has he ever mentioned Peter, but says, "Only Luke is with me!"
What I have posted here is Biblical.....not tradition and the Bible says that Peter was ministering to "The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." [Matthew 10:5-6][John 21:15-17][Matthew 15:24]
What a great post! Especially the points made above.
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.