Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Certainly our "Jo" is by no means "average". :) ...... But here we have an honest disagreement. Even in the English, as Quix has said, the Gospel message is clear. You are absolutely right to say that correct discernment is critical. However, what would you say the source of discernment is? Is it the free will brains that God gave us and then respected so much not to tamper with? Or, does God grace us with discernment, on a continual basis? IF God is truly in control, then there will be no false impressions about the Gospel for those God intends to receive it, in any language and at any time. Eyes to see and ears to hear.
[continuing:] The fallacy is not really glaringly obvious, but may even seem trivial. However, the concepts derived from such fine differences actually may lead him astray.
For many theological points this is true. Some rely on a body of men for resolution, and some rely on the Holy Spirit. Of course, individuals who rely on the Spirit don't get it right every time, just as individuals who claim authority by the pronouncement of men don't get it right every time. God's Church as a whole has nonetheless been preserved and united on the core truths.
What I am talking about are subtle nuances that are not obvious. Thus, Jesus says "be therefore perfect..." but He is really saying become (future tense) therefore perfect..." Or, in the Lord's Prayer we read "forgive us as we forgive ..." instead of "forgive as we have forgiven ..." The Greek version is in perfect harmony with the verses that follow, namely that "you must forgive in order for the Father to forgive you..." The order of what must take place first is crucial in formulating the faith.
But what is your conclusion about "subtle nuances"? Are understanding of these required to be Christian? I don't think so. In subsequent posts to yours here, I have covered the "tense" issue and how we interpret based on different paradigms. I see God as giving His children an instruction manual on how to live a Godly life VERSUS God making some kind of a "sales pitch" in print. Fundamentally, this is still a matter of interpretation.
I am sure that the Greek you have been taught is in full harmony with whatever conclusion you need it to be in harmony with. It is simply not plausible that the Greek can only be read and interpreted to fully support the Apostolic view, or views. I can and do appreciate that YOU read it a certain way and believe it is correct. No problem. But again I do not accept a monopoly on the language. Too many impossible things would have to be true if the monopoly was true.
[continuing:] Thus, I had a Protestant on one of these threads tell me that that was a lot of hot air because we have already been forgiven!
The Elect HAVE already been forgiven. Today is the day we remember what made that happen.
Take for instance even the English language. vengeance used to mean a slightly different thing than it does today. reading KJV English is not conducive to clear comprehension because it is an outdated language. Concepts change, and so do words. Thus, in order to be able to read the NT and fully understand it without going to lexicons and following someone else's interpretation, it is imperative to read it and comprehend it in Greek.
NO, there is no "Thus ...". :) Your conclusion does not follow the premise. While some concepts and word usages certainly do change, it makes no sense to conclude "therefore the only thing to do is use Greek". No, as most non-Greek-speaking Christians of all stripes, you must admit, have concluded, the thing to do is put together a translation that is faithful and usable by the people of the (then) modern day. Except for Orthodoxy, this is what has been done (I think) pretty much from before the time of the schism.
Once again, if Greek is the only way, then Christianity is not a revealed faith but rather a secret faith. That makes no sense to me since there are, and have been plenty of Reformers who are fluent in Greek. I could study nothing else for the next ten years and be better off, but it wouldn't change my theology.
In the meantime, I wish everyone a blessed and joyous Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who trampled death by death. And we sing “Your death, O Lord, we proclaim! Hallelujah. Glory to Thee! And your Resurrection we confess! Hallelujah! Glory to Thee!”
Thanks much.
Likewise to you and yours.
Amen, Dr. E.! Great Post!
we have an honest disagreement. Even in the English, as Quix has said, the Gospel message is clear
Obviously, not clear enough for us not have disagreements. :) The examples are too numerous to list, but consider only representative few. Such as the Roman Catholic (and very few Orthodox) reading of Peter's commission with the keys. Or the Protestant interpretation of +Paul's gospel (although technically not part of the Gospels) is radically different from the way the Church understood him (officially) almost from the start.
You are absolutely right to say that correct discernment is critical. However, what would you say the source of discernment is?
God of course! But our discernment is clouded by the human fall.
Is it the free will brains that God gave us and then respected so much not to tamper with? Or, does God grace us with discernment, on a continual basis?
Catholics and Orthodox will answer: both!. He gave us reason so that we may discern, and freedom so that we may choose, which He respects by His own decision, out of love.
IF God is truly in control, then there will be no false impressions about the Gospel for those God intends to receive it, in any language and at any time. Eyes to see and ears to hear.
But that presupposes that there are actually people who discern God's Word perfectly. We (and I think I can speak on behalf of our Catholic brothers as well) do not believe that any man is capable of perfectly understanding God's Word, but that the (One Holy Catholic and Apostolic) Church collectively contains the correctness and fullness of our Faith.
Some rely on a body of men for resolution, and some rely on the Holy Spirit
Actually, we rely on the a body of men who were commissioned by the Holy Spirit (the Apostles and their successors); others rely on their personal opinion (understanding) as being that of the Holy Spirit. It is clear where traps of narcissism can be discerned.
Of course, individuals who rely on the Spirit don't get it right every time, just as individuals who claim authority by the pronouncement of men don't get it right every time
Show me one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils to be in error. What we Orthodox consider infallible are the Scriptures, the Divine Liturgy (which pronounces the Scriptures), and the Ecumenical Councils, which are based on Scriptures. The three constitute what we call the Holy Tradition, not the tradition(s) of men.
That is certainly true of the Apostolic Churches and "mainline" Trinitarian Protestants.
However, the problem is what is "core truth". Some will say that all who consider Jesus their Savior believe in "core truth" and therefore represent the Church.
Such all-inclusive generalizations certainly do not define the Church because "Christ" in many of these assemblies is not the same, although they may refer to the Biblical Jesus.
Within a ocuple of centuries the Church found it absolutely necessary to define Who Christ is in order to establish what "core truth" is.
Faced with growing and newly emerging heresies, the Church was forced to define just what Christian "core truths" are. From those proclaiamtions (of the ecumenical Councils) we believe that (1) He is the Hypo-stasis (lit. sub-stance) of the Holy Trinity, one in nature (essence), that is — divine, with the Father and the Spirit; (2) that all Three Hypostases differ in the Divine Economy but are fully equal and indistinguishable in their divinity, one God, indivisible, simple, not compound.
Furthermore we also define that Jesus is the eternal Word of God, Who took on flesh and Human nature and was born of a Virgin; that He is fully God and fully Man; two natures, and two wills, unconfused, in one Person.
These nuances are not obvious from just reading the Bible. Closer scrutiny tells us that the devil is in the details, no pun intended, as some truly satanic cults have arisen from those who call on Jesus as their "savior".
Needless to say, all the various congregations calling on Jesus' name do not share these "core truths".
But what is your conclusion about "subtle nuances"? Are understanding of these required to be Christian?
Yes, most definitely.
It is a matter of interpretation, and – no – God does not give us a 'manual' as much as He tells us what the Truth is and, more importantly, brings us hope through Good News.
The Bible tells us nothing as to how we should worship God, other than the Lord's Prayer. It tells us to be merciful and pure in heart, but it doesn't tell us how to accomplish that. It doesn't even tell us to read the Bible, but to listen.
Worse, from the Bible alone you will not get a clear understanding of the Holy Trinity or the dual nature of Christ, our Lord. In fact, relying on the NT alone, you are very likely to develop a belief closer to docetism then orthodoxy.
But again I do not accept a monopoly on the language.
Fair enough. However, there is no such thing as a perfect translation. It's not whether a translation is inferior, but what degree of inferiority is acceptable.
It is simply not plausible that the Greek can only be read and interpreted to fully support the Apostolic view, or views
Reformation was intended to correct corruption, not the theology of the Church. The theology was born out of Luther's attempt to understand" theology in German (which was severly underdeveloped as a literary language at that time), using faulty sources, such as TR, and a Greek lexicon.
Even some of the misleading conclusions of +Augustine can be traced to his faulty understanding of the Greek language. Faulty reading leads to faulty comprehension, FK.
But let's clarify one thing: the Orthodox do not believe we get our Faith from Greek. Faith comes from God. Our interpretation of God's faith comes from the Holy Tradition, namely Scripture, liturgical life steeped in Scripture, and Seven Ecumenical Councils defined by Scripture.
The Elect HAVE already been forgiven.
Provided they also forgive.
it makes no sense to conclude "therefore the only thing to do is use Greek"
No, of course, not. Greek should be used as our litmus test, making sure our comprehension is the same as that in the original language — which becomes a long and arduous process very few are willing to take.
The Protestants want to go it alone, but very few will go to the lengths needed to master and read everything and all. The Orthodox and Catholic don't have to. The Church has addressed all the issues one could possible think of, and made them available to those who need to know.
Once again, if Greek is the only way, then Christianity is not a revealed faith but rather a secret faith.
There is some seed of truth in that, since not all who believe have had a "revelation" in the prophetic or apostolic sense.
Many people believed because they were "amazed" as the NT says. That's hardly a "revelation". What +Paul claims he experienced on the way to Damascus is a revelation, which revealed Christ [sic] in him. So, it is, in a way a religion of secret gnosis that was revealed only to the Apostles, while the "multitudes" were told parables.
I have some slight problem with trying to pin down
CO-EQUAL 100%
In some respects, seems Biblical. In others, not.
Jesus HIMSELF said there was none good except THE FATHER ONLY.
There are some mysteries we just don’t understand fully in our finiteness. And, I don’t think it helps to pretend we do.
Nevertheless, there’s plenty about Biblical truth of the Trinity that I think all Trinitarian Christian groups can feel some significant kinship.
The Bible tells us nothing as to how we should worship God, other than the Lord’s Prayer. It tells us to be merciful and pure in heart, but it doesn’t tell us how to accomplish that. It doesn’t even tell us to read the Bible, but to listen.
= = =
I don’t think it’s quite accurate to assert that the Bible says 0.000% about how to worship God.
I think there’s plenty of Scriptural support for worshipping God
1. WHOLEHEARTEDLY
2. WITH ABANDON e.g. David etc.
3. IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH
4. NOT IN THE FLESH
5. There’s some measure of evidence that God likes spontaneity at least some of the time—David being one example.
6. With songs, spiritual songs.
7. in tongues—singing with understanding and without
No, because both St. James and St. Paul refer to Abraham but they refer to the different parts of the story of Abraham. When St. Paul says that Abraham was saved not by works he speaks of circumcision instituted by God through Abraham; and when St. James speaks of Abraham saved by works, he speaks of the sacrifice of Isaac. This is the plain reading of the parts ...
It's interesting that you would use the word "saved", for James. The two translations I use (KJV, NIV) say "justified", and I was going to form an argument that the use of that word here is not in the traditional Biblical salvific mode, i.e. (Strong's 1344) "dikaioo" means "justified" in the eyes of men, not before God.
But then I realized that the word "saved" to your Church has no meaning of any lasting significance. One is "saved" only until his next mortal sin, at which time he becomes "unsaved" once again. So, you can simply claim that Abraham was "saved" concerning his belief (accorded righteousness) and then sometime later he sinned, losing his salvation. 50 years after that, he re-earned his salvation by offering up Issac.
If this is the general idea then we obviously disagree on the premise, and it folds into another topic entirely. But as to the original point about what the independent reader would think, as between the two here, he would weigh all 7 pages of the Book of James (in my Bible, including study notes) against the collected NT works of Paul. I know that the RCC has a TON invested in those 7 pages, (and doesn't "like" much of Paul's writings), but I remain confident in what the INDEPENDENT reader would conclude. This is to take nothing away from James and his 7 pages. They are fully scripture and are true. What I'm talking about is what the independent reader would conclude after reading those 7 pages AND ALL of Paul. He absolutely might have honest questions about Paul and James, but the huge weight of the scripture supports Paul's Sola Fide teachings.
I believe that the evangelists, St. Paul, St. James, St. Peter and St. Jude clearly expressed very many clear theological truths led by the Holy Ghost, both in the scripture and through tradition. What I don't believe is that they meant the scripture to be sufficient alone outside of the Church or open to individual interpretations.
If this is true then they wrote directly against what they taught orally, to a major degree. This was part of my original point. The scriptures, by themselves, do not lead to the RCC. They lead away from it. The independent reader isn't merely left "unfulfilled" by "scripture alone" under Catholicism, he is no where near it. :) Only through the bending lens of your Church can your faith be seen in scripture (comparatively). Paul teaches Sola Fide in writing. Some of you say "no he didn't" and back it up with the writings of later men, whom you trust more, who disagree with the plain meaning of his words. Others of you say "yes he did", but he (Paul) was wrong. It comes out the same. In your Church, whatever the "BIG" truth is, can't be found in scripture alone. We disagree.
FK: "We, OTOH, believe that all of God's word was meant to be learned and loved by all believers as relevant to them specifically."
This is a strange belief. Is it common to all the Reformed? This sounds like that comical "In the Bible we learn about the Ten Suggestions".
I am sure that my intention is common to all the Reformed, but since I don't understand your response, I suppose I should be careful. :) My point was mainly to point out the difference in our faiths in how much of the Bible actually applies to us. From what I've gathered, a noteworthy portion of the Bible is really private messaging from God to your hierarchy. IOW, for the rest of us, VERY KEY parts of the Bible are only FYI. I object to this view. I believe God gave the Bible to His children across time, and NOT, at key point, to only the self-elected few. God disapproved of man-led kingdoms. Why would He section off major parts of His Holy Book to speak only to Kings?
There is nothing un-Catholic in any of St. Paul's writings, or in any other scripture. This is why we are Catholic: we don't pick and choose which scripture to believe.
Well, you wouldn't NEED to pick and choose. Once it's washed through the Church's lens, scripture comes out meaning exactly what is needed. This is classic ends justifies the means. All scripture is fully Roman Catholic because Roman Catholics say it is! :)
We also do not believe that all scripture is perspicuous, and I gave you a scriptural prooftext for this Catholic belief.
None on my side believe that ALL scripture is perspicuous; that is, in the sense that it can be understood (and believed) on one's own. The Bible clearly says that God's truths will be foolishness to those without grace to understand. Therefore, "perspicuous" must be carefully defined for our purposes here. Understanding must be distinguished from belief. However, if you mean common usage, then we would say the whole Bible is not perspicuous, but rather the basic truths ARE. In my mind, the common usage of "perspicuous" would be "readily understandable". I do not say the whole Bible is like this. :) Christ's Gospel is readily understandable and believable to the elect at the proper time.
As does also the English word 'Justify'- 'To show to be just, right'.
Amen.
You mean don't bother you with the facts.
The Gospels had headings 'according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Today, we know that many of the NT books are not written by the people who were traditionally credited as authors. These include the half of +Paul's Epistles, the Acts, Gospel of John, the Apocalypse of John, 1 Peter and 2 Peter deutero-canonicals, etc.
'We' know nothing of the kind.
Those are ill conceived opinions by higher critics.
There is much reason to doubt the book of Daniel, the Torah's authorship and so on.
Once again, there is no legitimate reason to doubt any of the Old Testament books or their authors.
The only books that have some historical and other eivdence are the historical books, but then they have also been shown to be extremely exaggerated. king david's 'vast' kingdom was anything but that, etc.
No, actually David's Jewish empire did span a very great area.
By the time of Irenaeus us, who, though a native of Asia Minor, was bishop of Lyons in Gaul about AD 180, the idea of a fourfold Gospel had become so axiomatic in the Church Agreed. But that axiomatic 'knowledge' was based entirely on trandition of men, not any solid evidence of authroship.
It was axiomatic because of the authorship.
No book of the New Testament would be accepted unless the authors could be identified as either an apostle or close to one.
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirec
Well, I have no objection to that...except I would say overvhelmingly more indirect than direct.
I think you mean 'unofficial' rather than 'official'
I would disagree with this statement. Paul talks about Abraham receiving the sign of circumcision as "the righteousness of faith". Paul makes it very clear in Romans 4 that he received this after the fact and that it is a sign of his faith. This is also stated by the writer of Hebrews.
While I haven't followed all of this conversation, it's rather interesting that you would referred to Abraham as being "saved". As FK pointed out, Paul states that Abraham was "justified". This is a subtle but important point. We don't pop into and out of salvation. We are either justified or we're not. Abraham was justified when he believed God. Thirteen years later Abraham circumcised his camp. Twenty-five years from the time he left his homeland, Abraham was willing to offered Issac as a sacrificed knowing that God would raise him from the dead, a foreshadowing of things to come. It seems problematic to say Abraham was saved based upon the work of sacrificing Issac. In my mind that isn't what James is saying at all given the chonology. Instead, Abraham willingness to sacrifice Isaac stands as a testimony to the world of his justification received 25 years before.
Quix, what makes us all equal is our human nature, not what we do. The co-equality of the three Hypostases of the Godhead comes from their Divine Nature and not the Divine Economy.
The Wisdom of God is divine. The Word of God is divine. The Spirit of God is divine. They are revealed to us in different Hypostases in the economy of our salvation, but at all times it is one and the same God.
Are your words independent of your thoughts? Are they any less human? Is the spirit that comes from your thoughts, expressed by your words, any less human then the other two, or independent of them?
At all times, your thoughts and your words and your spirit are human, and are equally and inseparably you.
There are some mysteries we just don’t understand fully in our finiteness. And, I don’t think it helps to pretend we do.
That's why they are called mysteries. Those who pretend to understand or know God, as He really is, are pretentious, but knowing how God revealed Himself to people is not.
Nevertheless, there’s plenty about Biblical truth of the Trinity that I think all Trinitarian Christian groups can feel some significant kinship.
Trouble is, once you peel off the Trinitarian label, we find that among Trinitarian Christians the very core which was covered by the label is not exactly the same.
There are plenty of examples of how different people praised God, but other than the Lord's Prayer God does not command us how we should pray.
Actually, the 'Canon' was formed quite early by the Church.
It was the 'Alexandrian' churches that continued to hold on to the false Apocrypha Books as found in the manuscripts A,B and Aleph.
The same manuscripts that contained the false LXX.
Well, this difference does since we are the only 'religion' to claim our founder is still alive God is alive in all religions. He is the founder of all of them.
The Founder of the religion is not alive in those religions.
Moreover, Christianity is the only faith that claims its founder is God.
No Resurrection-no Christianity-(1Cor.15).
Well, there are no errors or inconsistencies in the Bible
Fundamentalism is the same no matter what color or creed.
And the Fundamentals may not be wrong as is the case when your Church accepts them in the various Creeds-such as the Trinity.
What God gave, He preserved as well
Except human beings. He allowed us to fall into error.
But He still can overcome those errors, as He did when He gave the Originals, and preserved them.
The Catholic Church was not following the Bible, it was following Aristole
Oh, I see...LOL!
Yes, that is true, it wasn't the Bible that was at issue, but the Thomist philosophy of the of the RCC.
The Creation occured exactly as God described it in Genesis 1
Don't be silly. Dark Ages are over.
Wow, that was a great argument.
Ancient docutments have far less evidence than to the Bible manuscripts
The Bible has no evidence whatsoever. There is not a trace of historical evidence of anything that is described in the NT. Even the authors of the four Gospels are anonymous.
You are so misinformed it is laughable.
Did you know that the Dark Ages are over?
The Bible manuscripts number in the thousands and are corroborated by the Church Fathers's writings, who quote them as well, and by church lectionaries that used them
That is a banal argument that only fundamentalists find "rational." Individual books are actually fewer than the copies of Homer's works (works of one author). Of course, we know that there ARE dozens if not hundreds of different authors of the Bible, so naturally there will be more books that Homer's work.
F.F. Bruce is not a Fundamentalist.
Your argument is just nonsense.
We have more evidence of the Bible than any other ancient books because God preserved them, not because there were more of them.
In the Greek Texts, Critical and TR, the authors are named in the headings
Show me the oldest copies.
Those headings are in the oldest copies, that is why they are in every Greek text, critical and TR.
That was a common practice among church fathers, who quoted scripture without naming who they were quoting
Well, the 'common' practice became uncommon suddenly in 180 when +Irenaeus started using authors as reference. Why did he do that? And why did all other subsequently acquire the practice?
Simple, because people were getting away from knowing scripture so the authors had to be cited.
Just like today.
Peter states in 2Pe.3 that Paul had written scripture
2 Peter was not written by Saint Peter. Neither was 1 Peter. 2 Peter was written specifically to bridge the animosity between +Peter and +Paul as evidenced in 1 Clement.
2nd Peter was written by Peter-stop the nonsense.
It was well known who wrote the books since that was the reason they were accepted as part of the Canon, their authorship
Don't make things up. The writers before +Justin the Martyr speak of the Gospel (singular), that is the Good News of Christ. They did not refer to any particular book. There were different scrolls in different churches and they were considered "the Gospel" regardless who wrote them. As it turns out, a lot of these scolls later on 'became' uncanonical.
It is you who is making things up, Churches accepted books based on authorship and that along with other critera, alllowed them to be accepted or rejected as canonical.
False books were circulating even in the 1st century and Paul warned the church about them (2Thess.)
That's why your "canon test" is a joke. There is no evidence of any fail-proof canon test being applied. The only criterion that applied was that a scroll was read in the church. It was presumed to be 'canonical.'
No, the historical evidence shows that the churches would only accept a book from an apostle or someone close to an apostle, such as Mark and Luke.
No, the Gospel authors were already well known before Ireaneanus mentions them by name. What do you think he did, make the names up?
No, he was going by the established tradition of the Church. That's right, tradition of men, lacking any material proof, accepted on faith. You seem to subscribe tot he same.
No, he was going by the names on the Gospel headings, according to...
Note the comment made by F.F.Bruce.
Alex: "This is, of course, also true, this is why Mary is co-redeemer but not a redeemer."
Since Protestants have ZERO acceptance of Mary having anything to do with our redemption (beyond giving birth), I'm sure you can see how we have a very hard time with your statement, at least in these times. The common usage of "co-" connotes something/one necessary or important to accomplishing something. We have "co-workers" who are presumably needed. We also have the concept of "teammates".
In the professional world, and especially in theological debates, we often use the example of "co-pilot". Perhaps it is possible that the captain "could" fly the plane without help, but we assume against that. We assume that a "co-pilot" is NECESSARY for safe operation or else the airline wouldn't pay for the position. I know for a fact that many Protestants believe that the use of the term "co-redeemer" by the RCC indicates a belief that Mary is somehow necessary for salvation.
Is that true? If it is not true, then how would you advise the Pope to clear this up, and many similar great misunderstandings, along the same lines? Of course, this is tied to the generally admitted Catholic belief that Persons are necessary co-pilots to their own salvations. According to your beliefs, people must CO-operate with God in order to be permanently saved. The free will of the person is necessary. With the terms you give us, why should we think that Mary is any less neccessary to our salvation if she is a CO-redeemer?
The slight rebuke you detect in Jesus's voice is directed at those who might venerate Mary as purely a vessel, a breeding apparatus for God.
Really? Can you give an example of where Jesus rebukes someone for potentially venerating Mary improperly?
Well, Abraham was asked to put his faith to a test. We see the same with Job. The common thread in all of them is: God knows that we have faith, but God wants us to show it by works.
In Exodus, God knew which houses were Jewish, but He wanted the Jews to mark them anyway to show their faith. Certainly God didn't need the markers (as He knows what's in our hearts)! But he wanted them.
So, +James uses the word "justified" (δικαιόω) in the traditional Jewish manner: that one is made acceptable (justified) to God by faith manifested by works .
Thus, in 2:24, James says "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." If this seems irreconcilable with +Paul from the Protestant point of view, it is! [which is why Luther has so much difficulty with +James]
But +James also uses the word "saved" (σώζω) as an apocalyptic concept, which is related to but not identical with justification. Thus he says "lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls" [1:21]. Notice that he says the word is able. There is no guarantee. And in 2:14 +James says "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"
James uses the term "saved" as the end-of-times Judgment and not a moment, which is the way the original Jewish Christians understood it (being an apocalyptic sect of Judaism) and how the Church interprted it from the beginning.
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.