Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"It is Written: Sola Scriptura"
The Highway ^ | Richard Bennett

Posted on 03/30/2007 11:03:33 AM PDT by Gamecock

"It is Written: Sola Scriptura"

 

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27.

By Richard Bennett

 

 

 

 

SCRIPTURE ALONE IS INSPIRED AND INHERENTLY AUTHORITATIVE.

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals. Thus there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord's people in the Church.

 

THE TRUTH AND THE SCRIPTURE

The Lord Jesus Christ, in His great high priestly prayer, declared clearly the truth of God's Word. He said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, "thy law is truth." The Lord Himself therefore identified truth with the written Word. There is no source other than to Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

In the New Testament, it is the written word of God and that alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, "It is written" as for example, in Matthew 4:4, "he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." In stating "It is written," the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord's total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18, 

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
 

OTHER SOURCES OF AUTHORITY CONDEMNED

Furthermore, in refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their tradition on a par with the Word of God. He condemned them because they were attempting to corrupt the very basis of truth by equating their traditions to the Word of God. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 "[You are] making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye." Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God's Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it¾ and it alone¾ is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.
 

THE EXPRESSION "SOLA SCRIPTURA"

From the time of the giving of the Decalogue on Mt. Sinai, when Holy God wrote with His finger on the tablets of stone (Exodus 31:18), until this present day, the written word of God has been extant in the world. The term "sola Scriptura" or "the Bible alone" as the measure of truth is short hand, as it were, for the emphatic and repeated statements of Scripture and of the commandment of God. The very phrase " It is written" means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. It separates from all other sources the corpus what a man is to believe. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.

In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word. 

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19)

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself. (Psalm 119:160)
 

THE PRESCRIPT AND INTERPRETATION

The principle of "sola Scriptura" is consistent with the very way in which the word of truth that comes from God, is to be interpreted, as Psalm 36:9 explains, "For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light". God's truth is seen in the light of God's truth. This is exactly the same as the Apostle Paul says, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God's truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (Cp. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7.)

The Apostle Peter, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, declares, "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God's written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself. Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture¾since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit's light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord's to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth "it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth" (I John 5:6).

Those truly desiring to be true to Lord in this very matter of the standard of "sola Scriptura" must turn to the Lord to obey His command, "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you" (Proverbs 1:23). If one is yearning of truth in this essential matter, in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 "with a broken and a contrite heart", the Lord God will not despise, but reveal to him or her the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles. In the words of the Apostle John, "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24). The Apostle John wrote, as did Peter and Paul, in order that those who are saved should know that his testimony is true
 

THE ADEQUACY OF SCRIPTURE

The total sufficiency of Scripture is declared by the Apostle Paul, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). For final truth and authority, all that we need is the Scripture.
 

THE CLAIM THAT SOLA SCRIPTURA WAS NOT POSSIBLE

In an attempt to justify a tradition as an authority, an appeal is often made to the very last verse in John's gospel where it is stated, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen". (John 21:25) Of course there were many of the deeds and sayings of the Lord, which are not recorded in Scripture. Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority when Holy God did not give it is futile. The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true.

Another desperate attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states, "even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter also declares that he was writing so that the believers could remember what he said. So he wrote, "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth" (2 Peter 1:12).

From the earliest times a substantial part of the New Testament was available. Under the inspiration of the Lord, the Apostle Paul commands his letters to be read in other churches besides those to which they were sent. This clearly shows that the written word of God was being circulated even as the Apostles lived. The Lord's command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written. "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another" (1 Corinthians 4:6).
 

THE REGULATION AND OUR LOVE OF GOD

The Lord brings the topic of truth to bear on our love for Him. This again underscores its importance. "Jesus answered and said to him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent Me" (John 14:23-24). And then again "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. "The law of the LORD is perfect" (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: "Thy Word is truth."




TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: solascriptura
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 261 next last
To: Gamecock; AliVeritas; FredHunter08; The Klingon; dcnd9; fishhound; rbosque; B-Chan; Froufrou; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

I stumbled across this and thought it was both useful and fun. The book that contains this info: "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys" is well regarded. From: catholicity.elcore.net/SimonIsTheRock.html


Who is the Rock of Matthew 16:18?

Is it the Lord Jesus? Is it St. Peter? Is it Peter’s faith? Or yet someone or something else?

The Biblical Passage in Question

From Several Protestant Translations

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”
-- New International Version (A footnote in the NIV to the word “Peter” says “Peter means rock”.)
“And I say also vnto thee, That thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it”
-- 1611 King James Version (The 1611 edition of the KJV has a marginal cross-reference at Matthew 16:18 to John 1:42)
“And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros — a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra — a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it]”
-- Amplified Bible
(A footnote in the AB to the word “Peter” says “The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20)”)

The Position of Some Protestants


Some Protestants, especially those of a more anti-Catholic bent, try to make hay out of the distinction between the Greek words petros and petra in the original written version of Matthew 16:18. Petros, they say, means “stone” or “piece of rock” or, even merely “pebble”; petra, on the other hand, they say means “large rock” or “boulder”. So, they conclude, the two words cannot refer to the same person or thing. Moreover, they say (quite correctly) that petros is masculine and petra is feminine; so, they conclude, the male Peter could not have been the referent of the feminine term. And, therefore, Simon could not have been the Rock.

The Predominant Catholic Position

As Explained and Defended by Numerous Protestant Biblical Scholars

The following quotations regarding the meaning of Matthew 16:18 come from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess. (This book is referred to below as JPK.)

To all of the Protestant biblical scholars quoted below, a traditional Catholic interpretation of this scripture — that Simon is the rock — is quite acceptable. Some of them explain clearly why — in their professional opinion — the anti-Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is mistaken.

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars

William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church,
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.
New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel
According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (emphasis added)
“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58 JPK pages 16-17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald A. Carson III (Ph.D., University of Cabridge)
Baptist and research professor of the New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John A. Broadus
Baptist author

(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative "this", whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
“Matthew”
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.
The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.
“The Gospel of Matthew”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37
161 posted on 03/31/2007 3:19:47 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Not to point the finger at anyone else to divert attention from our own problem, but >b>the amount of molesting by Catholic Priests appears to be substantially less frequent than that of non-hierarchical religions. Again, this is not intended to be a slam at anyone, just a compare and contrast.

Actually Mark, that's factually incorrect, if you compare apples to apples. From the figures and statistics I've studied, any given Catholic priest (historically) is four times more likely to molest an underage child (either sex) than any given "non-hierarchical" pastor. That number IIRC increases by a factor of (at least) 8 if the comparison is made between a Catholic priest and a "mainline Protestant" pastor. If you've got something that shows otherwise, I'd love to see how it stacks up against the other study data that I've read.

162 posted on 03/31/2007 3:26:53 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

"The very thought of it is ridiculous to me - because mortals can never see "all that there is" from God's perspective - only what He wants us to know."

Indeed. And He was very clear. He created the seven Holy Sacraments for us, because He wanted us to be saved. He gave us His only Son, who is God Himself, together with the Paraclete, because He wants us saved.

Thus we have Baptism, by water, blood or desire. We have Holy Orders through the Apostolic Line, created by God. They administer the Confirmation that we are, indeed, soldiers of Christ as the Church Militant. He instituted the salvic Confessional or Reconciliation where we may, through the Apostolic powers be forgiven our transgressions. The Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist where Calvary is daily given to us anew. In our final hour, He gives us the comfort of Healing in Extreme Unction and for those of us called to the marital estate, we have Matrimony.

In the Seven Sacraments we find Eternal Life, Forgiveness, governance of the family and the Church, healing, enrollment in His Army and the Sacrifice that sets us all free.

Deo Gratias!


163 posted on 03/31/2007 3:29:49 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Your post 88 was already zotted by the Moderator so I missed it, but I've found you to be a Christian man, despite our theological differences and I'll assume it wasn't meant ill.


164 posted on 03/31/2007 3:33:10 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

We've never had a situation where 12% of our priests had sex with the members and 40% had inappropriate contact.

These are from the Baptists themselves. Again, I don't mean to point the finger at Baptists, I would just compare - I happened on this article first. And the folks that have rightfully been looking into Catholic clergy abuse of children are now looking several of the non-hierarchical sects.

Celibacy ain't it. These ministers are all able to marry and have as an active a sex life as they wish. Oh, and statistics sometimes get a little muddled as well. Many of the ministers who molest their own children get into the stats as domestic child molesting rather than clerical child molesting, which would put the figures up a little higher yet.


165 posted on 03/31/2007 3:37:02 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
We've never had a situation where 12% of our priests had sex with the members and 40% had inappropriate contact. These are from the Baptists themselves.

(Most) Baptists don't consider themselves Protestant. Would you slander those pastors and congregations that came out of the Reformation for the ills of the Baptists?

Should all Catholic parishes be measured by the standards set by the Diocese of Boston?

166 posted on 03/31/2007 3:42:44 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
We've never had a situation where 12% of our priests had sex with the members and 40% had inappropriate contact.

These are from the Baptists themselves...

FWIW, while I think an enlightening and educational thread could be made of this subject, I do not want to hijack the current thread on Sola Scriptura in order to have it.

Feel free to start up another thread on the subject, and I will rejoin the discussion there.

167 posted on 03/31/2007 3:47:03 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
" Should all Catholic parishes be measured by the standards set by the Diocese of Boston?"

You did. Here:

From the figures and statistics I've studied, any given Catholic priest (historically) is four times more likely to molest an underage child (either sex) than any given "non-hierarchical" pastor.

168 posted on 03/31/2007 3:48:15 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Thank You.


169 posted on 03/31/2007 3:50:28 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: narses

That is a global comparitive statistic for both groups's likelihood, and not one using Boston alone. That would be unfair, just as using a Baptist-only statistic to accuse all Protestants of "greater abuse" would be equally unfair.


170 posted on 03/31/2007 3:53:03 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

And like most statistics, useless. Most of the abuse came from a few serial abusers. In every case they were in violation of Scripture and Church Law.


171 posted on 03/31/2007 3:55:02 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: narses
And like most statistics, useless. Most of the abuse came from a few serial abusers. In every case they were in violation of Scripture and Church Law.

Amen to that.

172 posted on 03/31/2007 3:58:14 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Indeed. My experience with my Baptist friends is that they are doctrinal cousins in the Faith. We agree far more than not.


173 posted on 03/31/2007 3:59:48 PM PDT by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: narses
Indeed. My experience with my Baptist friends is that they are doctrinal cousins in the Faith. We agree far more than not.

And a second Amen to that, too!

174 posted on 03/31/2007 4:01:13 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Thank you for your reply! Good to see you too, MarkBsnr!

With the exception of belief in the Trinity, I'd say that Mahatma Gandhi was a much better Christian than I am. And I'm sure that there are people who act much more grossly than I do that are better, and those who act more piously are worse. I'm sorry, but I don't see the answer here.

As you say, Ghandi would have failed on whether anything was as important as God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) to him, since he didn't know and/or believe in Christ Jesus.

It is my assertion, however, that a person led by the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 3, 14-17, Romans 8, I Cor 2, etc.) --- and not by his own self will --- would evidence certain properties as follows (to put the questions as statements:)

1. Would have no inconsistency at all between what he says and what he does, i.e. no hypocrisy.

2. Nothing would be as important to him as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Indeed, that would be all that truly mattered to him.

3. Would not complain or hesitate if God required him to give up all that he had, including his beloved family and friends.

4. Would believe God.

5. Would trust God.

6. Would love those who hate him.

7. Would love everyone else as well, not in words alone but in deeds.

That is not to say he wouldn't slip back to self-will or a pity party now and again, but while he is under the Spirit's leading - those are the properties I would expect to see as an observer of his life.

BTW, I was very pleased that this Pope's First Encyclical was on love. Evidently that will be the theme of his papacy. I wish, however, he had spent more words on the love of God than on the love of neighbor. That is, after all, the Great Commandment (Matt 22.)

175 posted on 03/31/2007 4:03:12 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: narses
Thank you so very much for your encouragments and especially, for sharing your testimony!

If I don't get to meet you in this life, I look forward to meeting you in the next one.

176 posted on 03/31/2007 4:05:51 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
If I don't get to meet you in this life, I look forward to meeting you in the next one.

IMO it's all the same life :D

177 posted on 03/31/2007 4:08:39 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Truly said, dear brother in Christ! For we are dead and our lives are hid with Christ in God. (Col 3:3)
178 posted on 03/31/2007 4:09:34 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Alex Murphy

I was watching a Fr. Corapi talk once and he had a wonderful line that underlines what you've written: He said in essence, we should be willing to give up our lives right now because we desire heaven so totally and completely. It definitely is a gut-check, because how often are we truly willing to die right now for heaven.


179 posted on 03/31/2007 4:11:52 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
So very true, dear brother in Christ! And it is so important we do those "gut checks" every day.

We must be willing to give it all up or we're being hypocritical in saying that we love God absolutely.

Another I practice is comparing my thoughts, words and deeds with the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5 (paraphrased): love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control.

If I see any of the opposites, e.g. hate, sorrow, anxiety, meanness, etc. - it's time to hit the knees in repentance for my self-will run awry.

180 posted on 03/31/2007 4:18:12 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 261 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson