Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
I'm missing your point.
Of course, but obviously that does not mean that no new divine commands can be added, otherwise, the Bible would end at Deuteronomy. Thus any inspired scripture clearly falls within those boundaries since, by even Catholic definition, it is directly God-breathed wording.
Of course. The Catholic Church does not claim that the canon is open. The Catholic Church determined that the canon is closed.
So my argument still stand with the backing of the Church. I cannot insert, "And thus Joshua, son of Nunn, ate a ham sandwich at Bethel." without the Lord being rightfully mad at me.
The closing of the canon, and 'sola scriptura' are distinct claims. You are trying to argue for 'sola scriptura' on the grounds of the closing of the canon. But they are not the same.
-A8
When a person believes a certain interpretation of scripture, he can "understand" and "explain" it. Other, equally valid or even more valid, ways of looking at it are hidden if they don't reinforce the investment he has made, especially if his spiritual salvation depends on the interpretation.
My responses are reasoning, much like Jesus or a disciple "reasoned" over scripture with a rabbi or scribe. Not all things are found in scripture, so implications must be reasoned out in light of the context, tradition and actual words.
This much is very plain to me. If Jesus, who knew things to come, was to award a human run organization the power over the very souls of men, who is accepted and rejected, who is saved or condemned, ways to address the Father that He didn't specifically say, the power and authority of God in judgment of how men think and act, His plan would have made it into scripture clear, unambiguous, and would have said specifically that with the clarity and specificity of ". . .kingdom of God is within."
I don't see how you've shown me that. You've shown me a Rube Goldberg device where there ought to be a hammer.
Are you missing the apostle Paul's point too? Then maybe you're missing the Gospel in its entirety.
Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God (Luke 14:15)
How does one eat bread inside of himself?
The parchments and scrolls didn't come from the Catholic church, and other translation have been made that shows the church's translation to be reasonably accurate.
Can you point out Scripture that says Jesus Christ did NOT establish a Church?
Neither can I point out the scripture that says Jesus did not say to wiggle the ears and spit before praying.
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Wasn't it our Lord Jesus who said, "A new commandment I give to you..."?
The scriptures weren't complete. Now if you want to say the Church has a right to interpret and refine the interpretation of the scriptures then that is a different matter. Otherwise you're into Orthodoxy which believes that the Church has been granted the authority to modify scriptures as appropriate and under serious consideration.
-A8
I'm not an expert here but but it sounds like you're saying what Luther did was OK and that my saying people shouldn't add to the writings is wrong. I would say what Luther did was wrong in itself. Fortunately history (God) has recorded this indiscretion.
No, Paul writes very clearly. I can understand what he is saying simply because the Holy Spirit helps me interprets it. Unfortunately, I have no such guidance with your post.
When does Paul say the Scriptures first preached the Gospel and to whom was it preached? It's right there in Galatians 3:8.
Other, equally valid or even more valid, ways of looking at it are hidden if they don't reinforce the investment he has made
Yes. Absolutely correct. This is why we don't read the scripture alone: we read it with the Fathers of the Church. Otherwise we are just reinforcing our prejudices, something routinely happening at sectarian Bible studies.
Not all things are found in scripture
Another one right out of the park. Veneration of saints, for example, is not there. One can reason about it based on what is there, -- but one cannot dismiss it simply because it is not in the Bible.
His plan would have made [the authority of the Church] into scripture clear, unambiguous, and would have said specifically that with the clarity and specificity of ". . .kingdom of God is within."
Bind and loose, two times, keys to the Kingdom, feed my sheep, disobedient to the church are worse than tax collectors, -- you want a bigger hammer?
This brings us to the inambiguousness of Luke 14:15. I agree, this makes it very clear that following His ascension we are too look for the Kingdom, and for His continuing presence, internally. However, to conclude from this that no external organization can hold the key to that kingdom, -- despite that clearly foretold by Mt. 16:19 -- is to disregard all the scripture except this one that you like. There are over 150 occurences of "kingdom" in the New Testament. Let me start with two obvious ones: St. Peter is given keys to it; we are to pray for its coming. None of this is suggestive of the idea that the kingdom is entirely internal to the believer. Likewise, if the kingdom is solely a metaphore for a disposition of the soul, then eating bread and drinking wine in it kind of makes no sense, does it?
More examples. Routinely, "entering" the kingdom is mentioned. Hardly consistent with an internal condition. Different people enter is at different times if at all; and some are lesser in it than others. In Mt 25 it is described as something prepared from the foundation of the world; but the individual is not from the foundation of the world. The apostles are promised judgeship in the kingdom, consistent with the actual kingdom as a social organization, not consistent with an internal state.
In Romans 14 the kingdom is defined in terms of joy, peace and justice. The former is an internal condition, the other two social. In 1 Cor 4 Paul directly speaks of his "rod" with which the power of the kingdom be manifest to the disobedient. In Colossians 4 St. Paul refers to his helpers in the kingdom; are they inside Paul?
In the Apocalypse the kingdom is only consistent with the social metaphore, especially when its power over thekings of the earth is proclaimed.
None of this is to invalidate the theological fact that it is the human soul that is the sole determinant of eternal life; but at the same time the entirety of the scripture supports the existence of a social structure of the Church. As Catholic, I have to look at the whole scripture, not only the verses I like.
My life is by the law of His grace. Through faith in Him we walk in fellowship with God, by His grace. Such fellowship with Him is more primary than a fellowship with a brother or any brotherhood. There is no need for us to pray for you, which you are not able to pray yourself. Some who degenerate in their walk with Him believe by praying for one another they can avoid liability for attempting to exalt themselves. But a true believer in faith may pray unceasingly for all things by His will.
How inambiguous is this:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.(Lk 14:26)
Or perhaps this HS of his has Alzheimer's Disease and can't remember what he wrote, much less the meaning of it? Or maybe just maybe, he has the same so-called Holy Spirit that Marcion the Apostate had.
One would think that, by now, with all these so called HS's around, they could have put their collective HS heads together and come up with something magical from that wild blue yonder around them.
If I had a so-called Holy Spirit that was so deaf, dumb, blind, literary-challenged, and obviously suffering from ADD/ADHD that he couldn't answer such a simple question, then I would trade him in on a new model, or maybe just dump him and find myself a 10 year old child somewhere, one who could just read words with honesty and simplicity, without the need of any Holy Spirit at all, to explain what these simple words mean.
I'm sorry, I don't quite follow you here. Are you saying that I am not able to pray? And/or are you saying that intercessory prayer is, in general, useless? And/or are you saying that praying for me is, in particular, useless?
I need some clarification.
The can be no authority of any organization to judge souls of men, determine who is acceptable or rejectable by Christ and the Kingdom, write scripture from scratch and make any decision left to Christ and God when each human being can and has the power and sovereignty to, by himself and himself alone, submit to the law of God and His commandments and be saved.
And this is quite beside the point that God clearly, by the scriptures, has each to be saved written in the Book of Life since the foundation of the world, and no human organization can have the authority to add to or delete from that book.
Great is the arrogance of any that think they can.
No matter what great work you build upon a foundation of straw, that work falls, as does the Catholic church, for being other than a humble helpmeet for those who work for and in the Kingdom.
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.