Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper; irishtenor; MarkBsnr; D-fendr; OLD REGGIE
Well, if you think that Paul's testimony in scriptures is no more credible that Mohammad's in the Koran, then I would say that's a problem

It is a problem or credibility, which is not established by anything credible. Why don't you tell me what makes one credible and the other one not? Just because?

Perfect people don't sin and the Apostles ALL surely sinned. Paul claims to be the chief among them, and he probably has a decent case

So they are not perfect but their work is perfect? Are you saying they are just pens in God's hands and none of what they wrote was theirs St. Paul claims a lot of things to be his and not commandments of the Lord)? How do we know that what is written as their own commandment is without fault? It's all "just because," other proof notwithstanding.

No, the full truth isn't relative.

Good. The Apostolics (Catholics and Orthodox) believe that the fullness of God's revealed truth, contained in the orthodox faith, is preserved in the catholic Church established by Christ. That's why they say that salvation is not assured outside the Church.

 However, God brings us all along at different rates and paces, and people apprehend the Holy Spirit's leading in different ways.

That's relativism and that is not scriptural. Christ did not establish many "churches" or "denominations," all containing intsy-bintsy morsels of truth. The Church was established precisely because different people seek God in different ways and different rates and some may never get to know Him. The Church protects such (most of us) from wondering off.

That's why none of us is in the same place in our respective walks (stages of sanctification). So, while everyone is wrong about some things, some are more wrong than others

That is Protestants' excuse of relativistic ecumenism, which recognizes no absolute truth but only seeds (Greek "sporoi") of truth in different denominations—one step short of universalism. God did not want us wondering and being scattered but being gathered into one Church, precisely because all of us are at a different level of sanctification. It is okay to be relatively wrong within the Church, but not when the differences actually become rival "churches" or denominations.

11,166 posted on 11/16/2007 7:38:43 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11160 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50; irishtenor; MarkBsnr; D-fendr; OLD REGGIE; wmfights
FK: "Well, if you think that Paul's testimony in scriptures is no more credible that Mohammad's in the Koran, then I would say that's a problem."

It is a problem of credibility, which is not established by anything credible. Why don't you tell me what makes one credible and the other one not? Just because?

It is partially a matter of faith, but it is not blind faith. The Bible is unlike any other "Holy Book" in the world. Christianity is the only faith where the main figure actually claims to BE God. In addition, the Bible passes all standard tests of textual criticism with flying colors. NT books were being circulated among those who were alive during Jesus' time and who would know if they were true or not. If they were fiction, then they would have been debunked and forgotten. Yet, that didn't happen. Finally, it seems that 99.9% of your faith is centered in the Church alone, and that same Church vouches for the authenticity of Paul's writings.

So [Biblical authors] are not perfect but their work is perfect?

In the drafting of scripture, God's work through them was perfect, yes. That's what inspired means.

Are you saying they are just pens in God's hands and none of what they wrote was theirs?

No, their personalities and writing styles clearly were allowed to come through, but the message was 100% pre-approved by God. IOW, no human mistakes or errors made their way into the original scriptures. Just as God managed that, He also managed to make sure that the copies we have today are substantially identical to the originals, at least as to the revelation that God wanted us to have.

St. Paul claims a lot of things to be his and not commandments of the Lord

One was cited earlier. There might be one more, but I know there is no pattern of any kind. There are not "a lot of things".

However, God brings us all along at different rates and paces, and people apprehend the Holy Spirit's leading in different ways.

That's relativism and that is not scriptural. Christ did not establish many "churches" or "denominations," all containing intsy-bintsy morsels of truth.

Of course it's scriptural. The first churches we are told about were all different and suffered from different spiritual problems. They were under no central human leadership. Paul's epistles prove all of this. In no way did the monolith you have now exist back then.

11,168 posted on 11/16/2007 11:25:57 PM PST by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11166 | View Replies ]

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