Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
It is a criticism of what I perceive to be the Apostolic view. The crux of the whole thing is to what level is God in control vs. man being in control.
I start with the Apostolic premise that God is a respecter of men in the sense that God allows man to do anything he wants in any situation. God will never interfere to the point of force, and it is more important to God to allow His beloved child to throw himself off a cliff than to intervene and save him by interfering. This is how I have taken explanations to me. In this sense the free will of man trumps God's will.
Given all that, we know from observable experience that in identical circumstances Joe will do one thing and Jim will do another. That is random. Put the two together, and the result is that man does whatever he wants in all circumstances, because God refuses to interfere, and then God, in His foreknowledge, is FORCED to devise His plan around those circumstances. So, for example, God had to "wait" to especially bless a Mary character and bring Jesus into the world until He foresaw all the necessary characters appearing at the same time, such that they were all suitable for Him to accomplish His plan. He had to wait for a Judas character, at the same time as a Pontious Pilate character, at the same time as the characters of 11 apostles who would follow Him, and on and on and on. By chance, it finally came up in God's foreknowledge that all of these things were possible at the same time, so that's when He moved. Of course, all prophecies were fixed to coincide with this opportunity.
Now, notice that I acknowledge that I think you believe that God is not totally inactive. I know you believe that God acts, my issue is that it must always be around the final free will actions of men.
I don't think the Apostolic view is that the world is in anarchy, rather I think it is that God is forced to work around the anarchy of free will choices because He refuses to interfere with the sanctity of human decision. God still gets His way in the end, but under the Apostolic view, co-authorship of the work "MY PLAN" must go to mankind.
+Paul didn't think so: "and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel"—Eph 6:19
Larry D. Pettegrew says "One of the qualifications of a pastor, in fact, is that he be 'able to teach' the Scriptures (1 Tim 3:2)," [never mind the fact that Timothy does noes advertise sola scriptura, so this quote is a non sequitur] and I ask Mr. Petergrew who determines that? Other pastors? How is that different from clergy that all Protestants despise?
So, now we need pastors in addition to sola scriptura?
Perspicuity comes from Latin, meaning to 'see through,' in other words transparent. To say that the Bible is perspicuous is to say that what's in the Bible is transparent, in other words, lucid, easily understandable.
in other words it's a fleeting ratrionalization that should require no qualifications or added requirements. The term is misleading as great minds clashed over its "perspicuity" with each seeing something different, even opposite in it. Thus, the Jews read the same Tanakh as the Protestants, yet they read different things in it.
Something that is clear, obvious, transparent, intelligible, should not lead to confusion or require someone to make it "more" clear for us. It's good to be able to teach, but why would one need to teach that which is obvious and clear as long as others can read? because it is neither clear nor free of mystery.
No, we will tell you that a child can understand the basics of God and salvation
No, a 5-year old does not know right from wrong and therefore cannot understand the basics of God and salvation.
If you mean Sunday, the answer is yes.
And so it is a matter of degree. Though I don't know how one puts a quantity to the degrees. How do we measure the value of the Sacraments for example.
Was it a simple reading that caused these to disappear after 1400 years? We think this is an incredible loss. Of course, you see no loss. We look at the same words and read them quite differently.
For example, one does not need to be ‘learned,’ when reading the Gospels or hearing them read or proclaimed, to discover that they intend to teach that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, performed mighty miracles, died on the cross ‘as a ransom for many,’ [how I remember this argument from scripture!] and rose from the dead on the third day after death. These things are plain, lying on the very face of the Gospels.These are the narrative of course. But scripture is more than narrative - I'd argue that if one read it only as narrative, it is not scripture, it's one story among many. What is the plain reading of the narrative of the Beatitudes - "Jesus gave a sermon." Of course, the meat of John's Gospel becomes gibberish in narrative form.
Thus, perspicuity does not mean that interpretation, explanation, and exposition by a Bible teacher are never necessary. The Bible teaches that they are. ...Rightfully so as much of their teaching is contradicted by new Reformers.Those heroes in church history who emphasized the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture never implied that the teaching ministry is unnecessary. The Reformers, for example, like Calvin and Luther, “wrote numerous exegetical and expository commentaries on the text, and discussed issues concerning the problem of biblical interpretation.”
So what does the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scriptures mean? First it means that Scripture is clear enough for the simplest person to live by.I don't believe any Protestant would say this is sufficient use and meaning of scripture. Philosophy and ethics are available elsewhere. This is not what makes it scripture. One must see scripture as having a deeper value and truth. Else why not pick a different "scripture's" narrative and words to live by? I agree with the point, but it is like saying everyone who listens to Bach hears some noise.
The idea is to dispel the myth that ONLY men in ivory towers are qualified to interpret the scripture for us.
We shouldn't choose our teachers by where they live. But let's get to the real crux:
a growing number of the interpretations of scripture made by the Magisterium simply bore no resemblance to the actual texts.
Based first on your interpretation requiring sola scriptura - which came from scripture, right?
Second, we look at some of your doctrine as bearing no resemblance to scripture also.
It seems to me that this definition of Perspicuity of Scripture means the average reader can get the story and "words to live by" (but not a Sacramental life). Past that they require Protestant teachers. :)
Which begs the next question: Which one? Based on what and whose criteria?
“If you mean Sunday, the answer is yes.”
Exodus 20:10, “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates”.
My hobby, to me, is not work but enjoyment and relaxation and restorative. How is that sin? I go for a walk on sabbath, it is work to walk the hills around my house, is that sin?
What determines what is “work” and what is “rest” or is it personal; how one looks at the activity or the intent?
Given all that, we know from observable experience that in identical circumstances Joe will do one thing and Jim will do another. That is random.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
;)
No. But does it say you you shall break it to save someone's life? The message is not that it's okay to break the Law of God as we see fit, but by fact that the Pharisees in their hypocrisy accused Christ of breaking the Law to save a man's life when they would think nothing of tending to their live stock.
It was called a sin by the Pharisees, who notoriously misinterpreted the scriptures. Jesus illuminated that misinterpretation
What does the Law say? The Bible is full of references to the sabbath. One thing is clear, sabbath is to be the day of complete rest, no exceptions cited.
Of course I put them on the same level, they are ALL the inspired word of God
Correction, FK: the Gospels are the words of God. Not inspired, actual living words of God, quoted not through a dream as one remembered, but spoken. You treat the experience of mortal conduits on the same plane as the actual words God spoke in Flesh.
But that's because of how the Protestants/Baptists see the Bible. I have already told you, the Eastern orthodox Church considers the Bible is spiritually inerrant but not free form human errors.
If the Bible is without errors, then the Bible is God. Do you worship the Bible? I don't think those protestants who make little ears to mark the pages or use highliters to write all over the biblical text treat the Bible as a God. Yet we all know that only God is without errors.
What are you talking about? Only the MOST liberal (and false) interpretation of the OT could possibly be seen as to support abortion
The OT speaks of killing children as an act commanded by God. Even God himself kills all the firstborn in Exodus. Is this the same God we know saying "Blessed are the merciful..."?
The OT is clearly the primary source AGAINST abortion.
Really? Where does it say that?
And, the OT never says it is OK for men to kill infidels on their own authority. It always took a direct communication and order from God Himself. God's creation is His to do with as He pleases. He will show mercy on those whom He will, etc
God does not kill. God is Life. He gives Life. That Jews believed God kills is part of their partial revelation.
While the OCA website DOES back you up, this view is in a clear minority. The following is from the New Advent...
FK, this little chart will show you that the New Advent, which sites second and thrid century testimony as "proof." Today we have a little more proof that 2 Pater was not written by Peter, and not even in the 1st century but around 100 AD at the earliest. 1 Peter was writtne no earlier than 80 AD, so that ione as wlel could not have been written by Peter.
But Bible research shows that early proposed canons (2nd and 3rd centuries) did not include or consider 2 Peter as inspired.
| Athanasius (b. 296) |
Origen (b. 185) |
Irenaeus (b. 130) |
Marcion* (b. 85) |
| Matthew | Matthew | Matthew | |
| Mark | Mark | Mark | |
| Luke | Luke | Luke | Luke |
| John | John | John | |
| Acts | Acts | Acts | |
| Romans | Romans | Romans | Romans |
| 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians |
| 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians |
| Galatians | Galatians | Galatians | Galatians |
| Ephesians | Ephesians | Ephesians | Ephesians |
| Philippians | Philippians | Philippians | Philippians |
| Colossians | Colossians | Colossians | Colossians |
| 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians |
| 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians |
| 1 Timothy | 1 Timothy | 1 Timothy | |
| 2 Timothy | 2 Timothy | 2 Timothy | |
| Titus | Titus | Titus | |
| Philemon | Philemon | Philemon | Philemon |
| Hebrews | Hebrews | Hebrews | |
| James | James | James | |
| 1 Peter | 1 Peter | 1 Peter | |
| 2 Peter | 2 Peter | 2 Peter | |
| 1 John | 1 John | 1 John | |
| 2 John | 2 John | 2 John | |
| 3 John | 3 John | 3 John | |
| Jude | Jude | Jude | |
| Revelation** | Revelation | Revelation |
* Marcion's views were peculiar to his sect. He was aware of the fact that many of the other books were read as scripture in most churches.
** The Revelation of John was first received and then rejected by many churches in Asia Minor.
Now, many say that Marcion accepted only Paul's writings. Why is that? Maybe because other books were not available at the time he was making the list.
Irenaeus was at the height of his career towards the end of the 2nd century and Origen's work is 2rd century work It's Athanasius' canon (latter 4th century) that was accepted by the Church eventually in its present form.
Work is not defined as something you get paid for. The bible is clear that even the cattle are to observe a day of complete rest; complete (Lev 23:32). Cattle don't get paid! Yet they were to rest to. Furthermore, the Bible says sabbath is to be kept holy. I think this means devoted to God, not to our hobbies. The Bible says one should not even cook on a sabbath let alone mow your grass.
Correctiopn: Origen’s work is 3rd, not 2nd century work as I wrote It’s way too late. I am going to bed...Good night everyone.
No, you apparently can’t. Islam’s back WILL be broken. You can take that to the bank.
God doesn't dress us.
Oh, He does more than that. He gives us the clothes too, and the will to ask Him to put them on us.
Pharaoh didn't have to endure the plagues. God knew he would. Pharaoh could have just let the Hebrews go. God knew he wouldn't.
God wanted Pharaoh to endure all the plagues, so He hardened his heart so that it would be so. God wanted the Hebrews to see this, in part, so that they would pass along the story of God's love and power to their children. Don't forget, if Pharaoh had been reasonable, there would have been no Passover. :)
Judas didn't have to betray Christ, but God knew Judas would. Just as God knew Peter would drop everything and follow Christ when Christ called him.
God wanted the crucifixion to take place since it was necessary for His plan. So, He withdrew protection from Judas to guarantee his actions.
Who made the decision? God or Pharaoh? God or Judas? God or Peter?
In each case, both made separate decisions. God's decision first led to the later decisions by the people.
But God knew that Pharaoh would be a stone, not because God wanted him to be a stone, as God does not delight in seeing anyone perish.
The idea that God wanted Pharaoh to be hard-hearted does not imply at all that He took any "delight" in it. In the same way God takes no "delight" in reprobating.
FK: "It is man leading God."
Only if you look at God as subject to time.
I don't see why. God abides man's decisions inside or outside of time, right?
FK: "Adam last caused them to be born into wickedness, not God."
Is Adam leading God?
Nope, God "first" caused it by letting the serpent into the garden, and Adam "last" caused it by taking the bite.
FK: "But in the Apostolic view, even if a man jumps on the right train, he retains the control to jump right off it again."
It is not our control, but susceptibility to sin is not lost. Concupiscence remains part of our nature and interferes with our will, leading us to stray, to betray God, to tempt Him. Knowing our nature, we never discount the possibility that we will jump train.
If you retain the ABILITY to jump the train at will, then you retain control. Our side says there is no ability to jump the train.
The belief that we all share the same life given to Adam is known as traducianism typically taught in eastern Christianity.
Thanks for the link. I'll have to think about that one. :)
Those you love you don't use as your instruments, FK.
Ah, but isn't the real truth that we don't use those we love as EQUALS as instruments? In fact, just on Sunday, I was pleased to shamelessly, and unabashedly totally USE my only beloved son as my instrument to satisfy my innermost desire at the time, that of having a cut lawn. He was my instrument, and it was good. :)
No, ‘twas a random act of kindness.
:o)
No good came to the serpent because he did not love God, and God does not work for the good of such people/entities. The garden was good for all human believers because God designed our existence to be in this world during these years. For believers, it is good by definition since it happened.
And just how did we benefit from going from being in Paradise to being cursed? Where is the "good" in it?
For believers being cursed is only a temporary state. Of course I can't tell you WHY God wanted it this way. If I had to take a wild guess I would consider what sort of love did Adam REALLY have for God before the Fall. He could do anything in the world that he wanted, except for one little thing. Yet, he did it anyway. Death ...... apple. Death ...... apple. Why? Perhaps because he had no knowledge whatsoever of why he needed God. How can one love God if he doesn't understand his own need for Him? We (and all believers since Adam) are better off now because we DO recognize our need for Him. That's one possibility anyway. :)
FK: "The operative and magic word used by many Apostolic around here is that we "COOPERATE" with God."
...... The Greek word would be synergism, more like the patient-doctor relationship or perhaps even client-lawyer relationship. The doctor/lawyer is in charge, but you can't help an unwilling patient/client.
OK, I can't come all the way there, but I like this a lot better than "cooperate".
Eastern Orthodoxy actually only refers to us (faithful) as slaves/servants of God.
Paul would agree. :)
What random anarchy? Man controls his own destiny by either dying unto himself and giving his whole life and will to Christ, or by refusing God and choosing perdition. No matter how you look at it, we exercise our will, and God exercises His foreknowledge.
I've been talking about this in other recent posts so I don't want to sound too combative. :) The synopsis is that man's decisions, uncontrolled by God, result in anarchy, or randomness. I disagree with the idea that God is thereby forced to work around all those random decisions to somehow figure out a way to get what He wants.
Yes, I remember the conversation from one of the old big threads about big W and little w, so we have no problems here. :) My trusty NIV actually makes the distinction.
Second, God did not bring any distortions; the people who wrote, copied and recopied did. Just the fact that our Bibles contain commas is a corruption because, depending on where commas are located, verses can take on different meanings.
Well, if you think that the people who WROTE (IF you are referring to the original authors) did bring distortions, then you cannot believe the Bible is inerrant in any sense. I realize that the Church is there to provide clarity on what were some of any perceived distortions, but the Church hasn't ruled on everything yet. In fact, in Orthodoxy, I think you told me that the Church has ruled on very little in terms of volume. How can one know what is a distortion from an original author if the Church is yet silent on it?
I acknowledge that the issues of commas and vowels and the like are important and valid to raise. But in my opinion, just from a common sense privately owned vehicle :), I can't imagine God going to all the trouble He clearly did to put this thing together, only to let it all go to seed because of vowels and commas. I figure if God's going to do something, He's going to do it right. So, I am comfortable with assuming that God knew about and took care of those issues.
Sure, I have no problem with the idea that there are some flaws in the translation I use, but I still think I have everything I really need during my Christian walk, just as you do with your translation. I think God made sure of that.
FK: "Do you remember word for word conversations from 30 years ago?"
I anticipated this question, and my answer is yes—if I repeated them every day, and I have no doubt that the Apostles repeated them every day. Remember, they preached the Gospels all along.
Oh come now. :) All I'm trying to show is that God's hand was absolutely necessary to get it right. They couldn't have done it on their own. The Apostles spent what, about three years following Jesus around? Did they start collecting word-for-word quotes, (or whole speeches!), back during those times and repeating them every day? Of course not. Plus, as scripture says, there was plenty of other stuff that Jesus actually told them that never got any ink. Did they memorize all that instantly too? :) None of them had any clue they would later be writing Gospels at that time. It just isn't reasonable to say that all four of them accurately quoted all of Jesus' sayings that they related, between 30 and 60 years later with no divine intervention. If they knew the plan from the beginning and sat there with pencil and paper for all things, then I'd give you a "maybe", but they did none of it.
Think about it. If it was understood that your job was to instantly memorize everything I was going to say, and then I read you just the Sermon on the Mount for the first time, could you repeat it back to me word for word even a minute later? Of course not. I couldn't either. And we're educated men! :)
I don't think I am reaching you, FK. I said the Gospels tell us that the Jewish interpretations of the OT were sometimes false. The reason for that is that they didn't have full revelation yet.
And in other contexts I am saying the same thing. :) So, what were the correct interpretations from a Jewish perspective of all the OT stories about God killing, for example? It just seems impossible to me for these stories to have just materialized and been absorbed completely into the culture from utter nothingness. We have the genealogies, these were not tall tales that took place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, etc. :) People were actually THERE, or they were not. They all either collectively lied from the beginning of their story or they did not. And this had to happen over and over and over again. Group lie after group lie after group lie. How is that possible? And why?
IIRC, you said one time that you think the OT was basically written all at once at a much later time than I think it was written (basically as it happened). Even if that is true, all the people of THAT time would have known if the stories coming out from the documents matched what they had been told all their lives. Brand new, wild stories never would have been accepted by the people.
The Jews were not always receptive; rather they were disobedient and often reverting back to worshiping idols. There are numerous reasons why it took so long. It was not God's doing. At some point you have to give man some credit and say God allowed it!
Yes, the OT tells us that the Jews were rebellious on many occasions, reverting back to idol worship, etc. The OT also tells us that God then exercised His wrath against them, specifically killing some in front of TONS of witnesses. How is it possible for these stories to have been passed down from generation to generation, and yet the real truth is that only half of it actually happened? Presumably, the point of God killing was to punish and show the whole people the error of their ways. But if that is all a lie because God never kills, as I suspect you contend, then why did the Jews actually change their ways toward good at any time? And, how did the Jews keep their lies hidden, since scripture says that God did much of His killing in front of many witnesses?
FK that is so well said and so true. There are truths in the Bible to be understood but centuries of teaching by a select few have been carried forward to us today and those are not necessarily the teachings, or all of the teachings, of Christ, Paul, Peter, etc.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
How do we combat that?
13. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Take ALL of His word, ALL of His truth. Test what is taught against what He Himself teaches and realize that perhaps some things have not been taught but are there. That is the WHOLE armour of God.
19. And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
Paul taught that mystery but who teaches it today? Is it a mystery that Christ loves us, that God sent His only Son to pay for our sins? Those aren't the mysteries of the Gospel. That is the good word, the joy, the grace and love of God.
We must search for those mysteries and they are contained in His Word. Those mysteries are the meat, not milk, that should be taught. They are the Key of David that unlocks understanding that no man can take from you. That understanding allows us to "withstand in the evil day".
We listen to teachers to learn about His Word. Some are sent by God, some are not but all must stand the test of their teachings agreeing with His Word. If not, you are following a man and man's traditions.
Mark 13:5 And Jesus answering them began to say, "Take heed lest any man deceive you:
Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "Take heed that no man deceive you."
Luke 21:8. "Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
For His warning to "follow no man" to be the first warning given, as shown in all 3 of the Olivet prophecies of end times - it is important. Test all teachings of men by His Word.
........Ping
Sure. The context is pretty clearly associative, not procreative. "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:8-10) The passage is not saying that Cain is the physical offspring of Satan, it is saying that sinners are under the spiritual fatherhood of Satan, the father of all lies.
You do have to admit that by having Cain not mentioned in Adam's genealogy.....it causes one to consider the reasons.
No, I don't have to admit that at all, because it's already been shown that the presentation of geneologies in Scripture varies.
You are free to disagree, but I have put forth the arguments which undermine your position. Your position is neither explicitly stated in Scripture nor is it necessarily implicit. Your position relies upon inductive reasoning and ignorance of the Scriptural context in which the prooftexts appear.
Before throwing that word in my direction perhaps you should list a few of the doctrines or philosophies I have used that were not taken from the Word of God. Just one would do.
You will notice that I did not capitalize "gnosticism." That was intentional. The general term gnosticism refers to exactly what you presented: the need to get at a deeper meaning that isn't clear or obvious to the normal person.
Whether you wish to admit it or not everything I have stated, everything, is written in His Word. It is there for us to understand. If you choose not to I assure you it does not bother me, friend.
Not only do I disagree, but I am presenting clear evidence against it. You are certainly free to play the "well, what I say is true whether you think so or not, so neener neener" but at the end of the day the arguments you present have been shown to be insufficient and erroneous.
Perhaps you need to go back and reread. I would be happy to list the MANY scriptures again that tell us, without a doubt about the 3 ages and that Cain is not a son of Adam. However, I can tell from the tone of your post that it would be ignored.
Didn't take long for you to start looking for a way out. What the tone of my post should indicate is that I will not simply take you at your word, nor will I let your arguments go unchallenged. There is not only room for doubt of your position...not only cause for doubt...but an overwhelming call for doubt because the texts provided thusfar DO NOT state what you are claiming, either explicitly or necessary implication. I will be happy to continue proving just that so long as you continue to preach these false doctrines.
Then turn your back on truth. It is your choice.
I have the Truth, friend, and His Word stands against your heretical doctrines.
QED
Being optimistic is good, but unrelaistic is not. So far, unfortunately, the game is heavily skewed in Islam's favor. Unless you are one of the few who believe we are actually winning...
I think that the phrase “devoted to God” is the key.
For instance, going along with curing the sick, serving in a soup kitchen on Sunday, providing the food and drink for fellowship after Mass, or even shoveling the walk up to church before Mass so that the people can make it it is certainly not against God’s law.
It is begging the question to claim that this means Satan had sex with Eve.
The Apostle John says "Cain was of the wicked one" [I John 3:12].
The context clearly presents this in terms of association, not procreation.
[Genesis 3;13] Eve tells The Lord that Satan seduced her.
Again, it is begging the question to claim that this means Satan had sex with Eve.
[Genesis 3:15] speaks of Satan's seed and Eve's seed.
A term used not exclusively of biological procreation but also spiritual decendance.
[Genesis 3:16] speaks of Eve's conception and pregnancy.
And as shown the logic behind a claim of paternal twins is purely inductive and highly improbable.
Finally, in [Genesis 4:1]......Adam knew his wife!
And together they produced Cain and Abel.
But.....according to the experts......there is nothing to suggest Cain was not Adam's son.........!
According to Scripture and plain reason there is nothing to suggest or support your errant position.
Just what does it take to unwind centuries of mainstream false tradition?
The intervention of the Holy Spirit, and hopefully your false tradition will indeed be unwound soon.
I won't mention that Cain is never found in Adam's genealogy.
You already did and it has already been addressed.
mene mene tekel upharsin
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.