Please explain your path of logic. Because I say that Bible reading does not necessarily lead to holiness (although it is instrumental in OUR day and age), I am now suggesting a God of the "Ten Suggestions"? How so?
I do not "equate" holiness with scripture reading, but I do say that they do go together. As I asked in a recent post, do you believe that reading scripture does NOT lead to holiness? The tone of your recent arguments leads me to believe that you think that the scriptures are a tertiary side-show to the faith. I hope you think higher of them than that. :)
Listen, FK. There are plenty of "Christians" who CLAIM to read the Bible. And yet, we see they have no problem committing adultery, fornication, stealing, and other such grievious sins that are supposed to end once we declare Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Bible reading does NOT make one holy. God makes one holy. We recognize the graces that He gives us and we utilize those graces, especially given through the sacraments, and we become slowly transformed. We become holy. While Bible reading is certainly a part of this, it is not instrumental in it. Submitting to the Will of God is. If only I could show you how many 'bible reading' Christians call me names, condemn me to hell, don't even consider me a Christian. They stoop to levels of conversation that are, quite frankly, embarrassing. This is from people who have been reading the Bible, according to them, for 20 plus years. Bible reading does NOT equal holiness, nor is it an accurate measurement of one's holiness....
We are all aware of holy people. I know a number of elderly people who are not well-versed in Scriptures. However, they adhere to Christ and I consider them quite holy because of their actions and attitudes towards their fellow man. In the USA Today, there are some editorials that are from non-Christians (maybe yesterday or today's paper) that tell of the problem. These people know the basics of Christianity - and see FOR THEMSELVES that many of us are hypocrites. I would venture to say that many of these hypocrites are Bible reading men and women.
As to your comments about "seeing", tell me, what makes you think I see actual blood and flesh when I partake in the Catholic Eucharist? What makes you think I see the Holy Spirit alighting on an infant when he becomes baptized? The sacraments are ALL based on faith in things we DON'T see going on behind the things we do see.
Biblically, leaders are proscribed and are good. There is no arguing that. The problem comes when defining the ultimate authority that they have. I believe that the power you give your leaders is unscriptural because it denies the laity from testing the teachings.
I am not sure what role you have for leaders in your scheme. However, in the Bible, did the Corinthians test the teachings of Paul? Did the Asians test the teachings of John? In the end, they did accept them as from God. That is the difference. I accept the Catholic Church's CLAIM that they speak as representatives appointed by God. They are to be held to the CHURCH'S (the entire community) bar of acceptable teaching. We are told to test the truth - when speaking of traveling teachers where we DON'T know who appointed them. But where is the Scriptural verses that tell us that duly appointed apostles are to be second-guessed - AND that we place OURSELVES in authority? THAT is not Scriptural.
The lay Catholic is PROHIBITED from questioning the core teachings from on high, if he wants to remain in good standing as a Catholic.
So are the lay Protestants. Please.... In your rush to judgment, you don't even consider you do the very same things. How long would you allow a Christian who said the Trinity was from a teaching of the "whore of Babylon"???
I have to cut short. Take care. Please consider what I have said.
Regards
Hi Jo kus, FK
We are told to test the truth - when speaking of traveling teachers where we DON'T know who appointed them.
The scriptures don’t make that qualification.
But where is the Scriptural verses that tell us that duly appointed apostles are to be second-guessed.
How do we know who is duly appointed ?
We know only that the Apostles were duly appointed of Christ.
Beyond that, God leads us to only trust the spiritual to understand (and, therefore, to interpret) spiritual things ... and to note the fruits of those who would claim to be our teachers.1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
__________________________________________________________
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
As I "hope" I discovered in my last post to you, we may be just misunderstanding each other on this, and really don't disagree very much, so I would like to hear your response to that first before I throw any more rocks. :)
We become holy. While Bible reading is certainly a part of this, it is not instrumental in it.
Well, at least we are making some progress, but I would say that absorbing God's word is extremely important.
If only I could show you how many 'bible reading' Christians call me names, condemn me to hell, don't even consider me a Christian. They stoop to levels of conversation that are, quite frankly, embarrassing. This is from people who have been reading the Bible, according to them, for 20 plus years.
I am very sorry that you have had that experience. And I would say that you know much more about them than they of you. That's all on them. They should be pitied and prayed for. But what has this to do with what I am talking about? Faith is the primary thing, regardless of whether one reads the Bible or not. For those who have true faith, learning God's word, through reading if available, is spiritually beneficial. Always.
I would venture to say that many of these hypocrites are Bible reading men and women.
And the difference between "Bible-reading" and "Bible-believing" is the aforementioned faith.
As to your comments about "seeing", tell me, what makes you think I see actual blood and flesh when I partake in the Catholic Eucharist? What makes you think I see the Holy Spirit alighting on an infant when he becomes baptized?
Actually, in my post I could not find my comments along these lines, so any help would be appreciated. :)
We are told to test the truth - when speaking of traveling teachers where we DON'T know who appointed them.
I fully agree with Quester. Yours is an extra-scriptural qualification. Paul was never shy about declaring where his authority came from and yet he greatly praised the Bereans for questioning him. How do you propose that Paul was supposed to "prove it" at the time? A waxed seal? :) At the local church level among Southern Baptists, all from the senior pastor on down encourage everyone to question them scripturally. Now, they will probably have a good answer, and such, but they believe just as Paul taught, that the final authority is always God's word first. Of course Paul himself was in a little different position, because he was giving God's word in new ways for the first time in many cases. That makes my case stronger that ALL teachings should be questioned. Paul didn't seem to mind and he was the horse's mouth.
But where is the Scriptural verses that tell us that duly appointed apostles are to be second-guessed - ...
What? My beef isn't with what the Apostles said, it is with what the men of your Church SAID they said. That is a huge difference. :) The actual words, and your interpretation are simply too far apart for me to accept. On this issue it actually has nothing to do with the Apostles themselves.
How long would you allow a Christian who said the Trinity was from a teaching of the "whore of Babylon"???
If he attempted to teach it from a leadership position, he would be greatly counseled, and failing that, he would be thrown out. If he simply believed it, he would be counseled for as long as it took to turn him around. It would be most likely that he would leave on his own if it came to that. I see this as COMPLETELY different from my understanding of excommunication. We never claim to be dispensers of salvation. We don't effectively damn souls to hell by non-forgiveness by clergy. Our clergy does not pretend to wield that power, however, yours does, in fact.
I have heard many, many stories of lay Catholics going to great lengths to avoid being excommunicated, sometimes in a bad way, because they are scared to death of being forever damned by being cast out from the RCC. Many of these are, of course, related to dissolution of marriage issues, but there are also others related to relatives wanting their loved ones to be buried in a Catholic cemetery, and I'm sure a few other issues as well. (I'm not suggesting a ton, because I know that in Catholicism confession and genuine repentance can fix just about anything. And I'm good with that.)
Please consider what I have said.
I always do, and I know that you think about what I have said too. That's a big reason I so enjoy our conversations. :)