Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
He knew that if his thrist be quenched, he would be with with the Lord, and noy in hell.
Well, see, that's the problem. ALL people make the same claim for their own theologies. Mormons. JV's. Baptists. Calvinists. Catholics. Who do you know that is Christian that make the claim that their theology is NOT from the Christian bible or based upon it? We discount some of the above statements based upon our own opinions on what the Bible says, but clearly, THEY think it does by their own reading of it. That is the reason why SS MUST fail in the end. There is no authoritative interpretation of it. Quite frankly, people can make the Bible to say practically anything they want.
Not a bad point. They also could have been simply repeating Jesus' actual words, which DO sound like cannibalism to the unbeliever.
How would the Romans know what Jesus said unless they heard it from other Christians? Quite obviously, the Romans learned that the Christians took the eating of flesh quite literally. There are a number of other religions that have symbolic meanings for doing particular rites that the Romans were aware of and KNEW they were symbolic. Not the Christians. They knew that they seriously believed what they practiced. This is seen not only in the writings of the Fathers, but also, in the replies made by hostile witnesses, such as Celsus to Origen.
I don't know for sure one way or the other what they said on this. I would assume they would want to deny it, but I don't know how they would have gone about explaining the Eucharist to non-believers, especially when it is so difficult to do so today to OTHER believers. :)
I think the early Christians would have as much of a difficult time convincing others what they meant by "communion" and "eucharist" as Christians do today who are trying to point the meaning out to other CHRISTIANS who NOW no longer believe it... The question to ask is "why do I not believe it anymore, when my ancestors in the faith did"?
I have never thought of myself as infallible in my reading of the scriptures. You saw proof of that yourself on the other thread when I was happy to switch a position upon being showed a superior scriptural argument. I mean, I'm good, but not that good. :) It will not shock me at all if it happens again. That's sanctification.
That's a problem I have already pointed out before. Sanctification is not based on Bible knowledge and knowing how your theology fits together. I know LOTS about the Catholic faith, but that doesn't mean I put into practice as much as I am called to do. Sanctification is about becoming HOLY, like Christ, NOT to become smarter about the Bible!
I know that I know what the Spirit wants me to know, when He wants me to know it. That's all I need to know. :)
Ah, you just said that you have been wrong before. And then, you said the same thing!!! "I am led by the Spirit, I am right... Oh, well, I will recant and now the Spirit is leading me in the oppositie direction?"
That's special pleading. I can say the exact same thing and really believe it. However, as I have asked you before 3 times now and have yet to receive a reply, "where does the Bible talk about the Spirit leading the individual to interpret successfully the Bible"? I do not see it, and as a matter of fact, I can tell you that there are verses that tell us that He does NOT do this, but leads either the authoritative body or the Church as an entire body. This is what the Church teaches. You teach that you can come to what the Bible means by yourself - but the Bible doesn't teach that, nor does our common experience.
It is futile to resist!
Regards
That might be difficult to do, since history sees the Church as one organization that saw numerous heterodox groups fall away from community with this one unit. Thus, it will seem like an "us" vs. "them". The gist of the discussion is that there is no central authority in "non-Catholic" Christian groups (I exclude Orthodox from this discussion because I consider them "catholic" in regards to the articles of faith). Even the Bible is not a central authority, because, as you jokingly point out, different groups bash each other and get nowhere. That is because the individual, not the Bible, is the point of authority. That is because each "Protestant" sees himself led by the Spirit.
To continue, nothing you posted mentions anything about the Holy Spirit giving the individual bible study interpretations. Naturally, we will become more holy by the Spirit's work in us, but it is not suggested anywhere that this is a RESULT of reading the Bible, but rather, of having the Spirit working within us! Thus, your connection or definition of sanctification vis a vis bible study is incorrect. Sanctification is about "making the soil more productive to bear the fruit". That doesn't mean one will have more book knowledge about the Scriptures. As I said before, even illiterate people are quite capable - MORE SO - of being made sanctified (because they have fewer impediments to keep them from dying to selves. People of the First World have a more difficult time doing this)
Regards
I have given you several Spirit/sanctification verses and argued that interpretation is part of sanctification. However, it may have been on a different line, and after your post here. If you have not seen it by now, just let me know and I'll try to find it.
Remember, God has given His Church apostles, preachers, evangelists and so forth. Everyone is NOT an apostles, preacher, evangelist, and so forth. Is it surprising that God would leave an authoritative body to interpret His Word?
Yes, it is surprising as practiced because it separates the laity from a personal relationship with God, and there is no accountability. It establishes "kings" which God said He didn't want in the OT.
God created the human race out of love. He did not need to
create anything or anyone. Moreover, He elevated the human
race to a supernatural destiny, nothing less than the vision of the Holy Trinity for all eternity. All of this not because He had to, but only because He loves.
God became man out of love for the sinful human race. He
became a mortal man to die to prove how much He loves us. He assumed a human will that He might freely suffer. Do all
humans suffer? Yes. Do all humans suffer willingly? No. The
essence of love is to suffer willingly for the one you claim to love. God became man to suffer with a human will.
Christ, the Son of God who became the Son of Man, suffered
and died not just for the predestined elect, but for all
mankind.
God gives everyone enough grace to be saved. Is everyone
saved? No. God wants all men to be saved yet gave us a free
will with which we can choose either to love Him or love
ourselves even to the contempt of God.
We have a free will by which we can really choose to love
God. When we want what God wants then we are loving Him.
Love unites two wills: the will of God, by which He offers
us His grace; and our will, by which we correspond with the
graces we receive.
_We have a free will that can go beyond the call of duty. We can do more than just cooperate with God’s grace to avoid sin. We can also love God more than we have to . . . more than we must. Read the letters of St. Margaret Mary. After twenty pages you will have to brace yourself. This loving God more than we have to means loving the cross. Christ joyfully chose the cross, and invites us to do the same, out of love for Him.
I will be gone to late Thursday.
I wish you a Blessed evening!
"Totally" could mean what you say, but that obviously isn't the way it is used by those who believe in it. It describes a current condition which IS changed by the power of God. The point of it is that we cannot come to God on our own. Our separation is total. No matter how smart we are, and no matter how strongly we perceive our inner goodness, we are going to be lost without divine intervention. It is "dead" vs. "wounded". God raises the dead.
More correctly, the definition should be "partially depraved", since our motives are very rarely totally evil.
I think that would be the Catholic position, since you believe we are born with inner goodness that we use to cooperate with God. Total Depravity is meant to distinguish from that.
“”God created the human race out of love. He did not need to
create anything or anyone. Moreover, He elevated the human
race to a supernatural destiny, nothing less than the vision of the Holy Trinity for all eternity. All of this not because He had to, but only because He loves.
God became man out of love for the sinful human race.
He became a mortal man to die to prove how much He loves us.
He assumed a human will that He might freely suffer.
Do all humans suffer? Yes. Do all humans suffer willingly? No. The essence of love is to suffer willingly for the one you claim to love. God became man to suffer with a human will.
Christ, the Son of God who became the Son of Man, suffered
and died not just for the predestined elect, but for all
mankind.
God gives everyone enough grace to be saved. Is everyone
saved? No. God wants all men to be saved yet gave us a free
will with which we can choose either to love Him or love
ourselves even to the contempt of God.
We have a free will by which we can really choose to love
God. When we want what God wants then we are loving Him.
Love unites two wills: the will of God, by which He offers
us His grace; and our will, by which we correspond with the
graces we receive.
We have a free will that can go beyond the call of duty. We can do more than just cooperate with God’s grace to avoid sin. We can also love God more than we have to . . . more than we must. Read the letters of St. Margaret Mary. After twenty pages you will have to brace yourself. This loving God more than we have to means loving the cross. Christ joyfully chose the cross, and invites us to do the same, out of love for Him.””
(Father John Hardon)
Amen.
Amen. Thanks for the story.
Sure. She’s now back in Taipei near 70 years old teaching at the Baptist seminary in Taipei.
She taught for a couple of years in Nanjing where she had great influence because the Mainlanders knew what she’d done—i.e. resigned over the idiocies of the home mission board.
God created Adam for the same reason as you and me, to fulfill His plan. The destiny of the person is irrelevant to the purpose for creation. Your Church and I assume that Adam is now in Heaven, so Adam ultimately "succeeded". And yes, God created many already knowing they would not wind up in Heaven.
I think you have twisted Kolo's words into something he did not intend them to be. An orthodox laity, living an established faith, is different from laity being "led" by the Holy Spirit into accepting the Bible.
No, my paraphrase of Kolo stopped with the first sentence. After that I said "I would say ... :) Sorry for any confusion.
If so, then God really did not want Israel to accept His Son as their Savior.
God wanted the "Israel" that Paul describes to accept Christ. And they all did.
That argument carries about as much weight as Mohammad's claim that God dictated Koran to him word by word. A psychotic can claim with equal conviction that he is Napoleon, FK. It's all quite "reasonable" when you dispense with reality. Things just don't happen the way they are described in the Bible, some people's fancy notwithstanding.
I'm not sure what to say to this. What does God's omnipotence mean to you? Does it mean that God "CAN" do anything, but He would never do anything that would normally not make sense to us? Is it your understanding of science that prevents you from believing the literalness of the Biblical stories?
That's silly, imo. If you can't change anything why not just say "Thy will be done" and be done with it?
Do you believe that all prayer is only about supplication? I am absolutely sure that Christ died for my sins, and I thank Him for that all the time. I do so in prayer.
FK: "This started with your assertion that the Bible was "wrong" for saying that God raised Christ. I maintain that the Bible isn't "wrong"
Well, if He couldn't raise Himself, but needed outside help, then He is not God. Clearly, when +Paul says Christ was raised by God, he puts Christ outside of God.
Nobody has said anything about God needing help, except perhaps for Apostolics who say that God needs the help of man to save people. :) At any rate, I know of no one else on this forum, on any side, who would agree with you that Paul puts Christ outside of God. Indeed, Paul acknowledges Christ as God when they first met.
+Paul never clearly says Christ is God. He says Christ is an "image" of God (but so are we as well!).
Paul says it LOTS of times without reference to "image":
Rom 9:5 : Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. NIV
Col 2:9 : For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. KJV
1 Tim 3:16 : 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJV
There are more, and I really think you are pushing water up hill to say that Paul didn't say (or think) that Christ was God.
I saw them, and that is not what I asked for. I asked for verses that tell us that the individual believer is uncannily guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scriptures with "infallible" accuracy. I have already told you that the Bible tells us that the Apostles, the leaders of the Church OR the entire Church have been given that charism, not the individual. It should be painfully clear that the Spirit does NOT lead men to individually interpret Scriptures correctly. You are again making the mistake of equating holiness with Scripture reading. The later does not necessarily lead to the former.
Yes, it is surprising as practiced because it separates the laity from a personal relationship with God, and there is no accountability.
Your "relationship" with God is through an invisible idea, while mine is through the medium of people and things that I can see. I personally prefer the Catholic way. Yours is too subjective and emotionally driven for me.
It establishes "kings" which God said He didn't want in the OT.
Perhaps you have forgotten the numerous times that authority was established by the NT Scriputes, to include Jesus Christ HIMSELF! Isn't it clear that leaders were established in each community as related in the Scriptures? What was there purpose if people were expected to read and heed on their own?
It is pretty obvious that leaders were established in the latter writings to preserve what was once taught. The Bible is pretty clear that there were false teachers, no doubt using the Scriptural letters of Paul and so forth, to push forward their agenda or theological beliefs. The leadership was established by Christ Himself to preserve what He taught. The Bible is not enough to do this by itself, as is painfully clear in the mere existence of numerous Protestant denominations who claim the Bible as their sole authority... not seeing that THEY are their sole authority.
In the end, the discussion of Protestant vs Catholic comes down to "who is the final authority"? Myself or the Church? The Bible is not the final authority because it is a book subject to interpretation. God no doubt knows this and certainly doesn't place man as the final authority. Thus, we see Christ forming a leadership that WOULD be guided. This is all Scriptural. Individual bible reading is NOT.
Regards
We agree on that, but I believe "total depravity" means we do nothing WITH God. God does everything in this construct. Our choice is nowhere in the mix, which makes God the sole decider of whom will be saved, although God "desires ALL men to be saved". As a result, I cannot agree that God does not take into consideration our own choice, even though it is imperfect and cannot come to God by itself.
I believe we do possess the desire, latently, to unite with God. We all desire happiness and we all enjoy beauty and truth and goodness, at least imperfectly. Our position is wounded, which still maintains that we cannot come to God alone.
Regards
Yes, that's why I tried to be careful to include the line "this week's mowing". IMHO, to add in extra facts is to change the story, and this is what I think might be happening to scripture when a second layer of "application" is added to what is in the text.
Again, the glib inadequate explanation is that God never changes because he's outside of time.
Yes, I would say that the Bible by itself is clear enough that God does not change, regardless of His being outside of time. For example:
Mal 3:6 : "I the Lord do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
Num 23:19 : God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
---------------
It is that which washes away original sin and it is that which restores the one who has done what John calls a deadly sin. The same act. The ONCE and for all act which can never and need never be repeated.
Respectfully, here again I see additions, or rather qualifications, being made to the text to change the story. In this case we have original sin and mortal sin. The text just says "sin". I'm not aware of the concept of venial sin in scripture because "the wages of sin is death". Plus, to say that Jesus died for mortal sins "once and for all" does not include the "application" proviso. So, there is no sense of completeness in the interpretation because there are strings attached.
God is like the pay master who looks through the book to find a way to give us a little more, as opposed to what we think of Him too often (even if we're not really aware that we think it) which is that he's the pay master who is intent on finding out how to hold back as much as possible.
Amen to that. While I know it's not the same experience that you have, I believe I know generally what you're talking about.
If a man sees his brother committing a sin which is not a deadly sin, he should pray to God for him, and he will grant him life -- that is when men are not guilty of deadly sin, There is such a thing as deadly sin, and I do not suggest that he should pray about that; but although all wrongdoing is sin, not all sin is deadly sin.I don't know if that is some supposed "proof text". (If so, it's a lousy one!) I just happened to be cruising around the Bible the other day and I came across it and said unto my self, "Well bless my soul, WHAT do THAT mean?"
Okay, with respectful diffidence, try this wild hare(hair?) of an idea. Jesus once for all did what He did. Is the whatever-it-is which we call being born again or awakened or whatever superfluous? It's an addition of some kind. It is a bestowal/appropriation on/by you of the once for all act? Yes it is cheifly an apprehension of the act of Christ and of its meaning for you, but it is also certainly a grace. so it's a now "re-present-ation" of Good Friday, etc. 33 AD.
I GUESS I'm conjecturing something like this: It is not the sacrifice which is repeated in the Mass, the confession, or the individual's coming to Jesus, it is all "application".
And in other news, while I'm running things up various flag-poles, let me offer my distinction between "Sin" as a state and "sins" as acts. The state of Sin would be opposed to the state of Grace but "sins" happen in both of them. And I GUESS the concept of mortal sin - which I doubt is exactly what John had in mind, is that it's a sin which reaches to the level of rejecting Grace. An inadvertent "Sumbidge!" slipping from my ruby lips especially when in the company of say, nuns, would indicate a persistent disorder in self-control, awareness, "recollection" like that - a truth about me which could indeed metastasize into a trip on the down escalator. Shooting a man in Reno, just to watch him die -- that's probably a good example of someone who "doan need (in his lost mind) no feelthy, steenkin grace" and therefore "mortal". And when he "comes to himself" then a certain "Father I have sinned before ...." might be required before the father interrupts and says,"NICE to SEE you! C'm'ere, let me hug you!"
Just trying here, not even to sell, but to depict as not unthinkable.
Paul says it LOTS of times without reference to "image": Rom 9:5 : Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. NIV
The Greek text says the following (in Byzantine as well as Alexandrian text-type):
Literally:
The difficulty with +Paul's languge is that in those days no one used commas, which makes his writings subject to all sorts of fanciful combinations. Maybe you can now appraciate Kolo's comment that he doesn't particuarly care for +Paul. His runon sentences are part of that reason, I am sure!
But your NIV (KJV) verse is misleading because it is doctored to make it sound as if Paul is actually saying Christ [in flesh!] is God over all.
The NAB translation is actually as close to the Greek literal statement as possible:
Notice that no matter where you place the commas, +Paul never says that Christ is God over all as your version artificially created.
It is clear that +Paul did not have a Triniatrian Christ in mind, but a Jewish meshiyah, in flesh, in His human nature only. Which is why he said that Jesus was raised by God and why the Church later changed that in the Creed to read that Christ rose instead.
Of course, the KJV's misleading translation comes from Textus Receptus, which was based on unreliable 14th century doctored Greek sources, which represent the a whole corpus of doctroed documents made to fit Christian theology better known as the "majority text."
Correction: actually the KJV version in this instance (Rom 5:9) reads as does the NAB. I was reading the NIV source thinking it was KJV. My apologies.
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.