Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Boy, that's sure gonna be an easy job! ;o)
There’s a little German named Ratzinger that just made it a whole lot easier...
I understand that there would have no church or bishops but for God establishing men and writings as being from Him, by the means i described.
My statements did not deny the efficacy of conciliar lists, nor the Biblical basis for the church magisterium behind them, but why something gets included is the issue. The bishops of The Church did not make Scripture inspired, and as it is, then it has a power all its own, and no matter what such authorities affirm or deny, the manna from heaven will be manifests as such due to its effects. The church is a supernatural entity, whose faith realizes effects which correspond to the claims of manifest men of God and their writings, and what they believed was related to why they believed it.
And while oral tradition usually came before written, does a common ground sanctify both tares and wheat? As traditions of men can become taught as truth from God, as the Jewish “bishops” did, thus should what is held as Scripture be based upon such authority as if they were infallible? Or was it by the above means that writings were progressively recognized as Divine, and the canon being closed, nothing should be held as equal, and all be subject to conflation to it.
Tell, d, what did the HS inspire any protestant preacher or divine to add to the canon of the NT as established by The Church?
Thank God if they did not make anything equal with that within a closed, Divinely established canon. That it inherited things from other churches does not make the latter infallible or supreme any more than it makes the Jews today.
Now, as for your citations, well, it looks like the old proof text generator has a bug in its software. What in heaven's name do they have to do with the issue at hand?
The have to with whether men can teach whatever they judge among traditions to be of God, or whether judgment is bound to be most supremely subject to what has been prior established as being of God, the Scriptures. This does not reject “tradition” from being considered, and within Protestantism what its founders said and did has some consideration, but what is the supreme source by which all is tested is the issue, and what really establishes it.
It isn't that the NT's claims are factually self authenticating is it?. Tell me you don't mean that!
Don't tell me you believe councils are infallible, but we have no Scripture that is. Not self authenticating, but God-authenticating as truth, using men who believed it and realized its effects, which conformed to and complemented that which was prior established as being of God. Again, Biblically, God made Himself real to Abraham and he believed, God supernaturally attested to his faith and overall morality, which established him as a friend of God and through whom a holy nation was born. Moses was established as "the man of God" due to his holiness and faith which conformed to that which was prior testified to as from God, to whom more was revealed, and whose authority God mightily supernaturally attested to, and who provided the written law. And in like manner the apostles where established,and added more to Scripture. (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; 2Pt. 3:16)
What is the objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired by God? Is it the NT, with all its variations?
What was Paul referring to when he wrote 2Tim. 3:16? Or the author Ps. 19? It is only the originals that were called God's word or Scripture?
OK. What exactly about it is "infallible"? It is a book, d. Are books "infallible"?
“The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” (Ps. 68:11) Not by literal presses then, but while the inspiration was pure, men where/are responsible for its future transmission, and discernment is required when faced with variants, but which do not make or break a doctrine or render books to not be Scripture, which texts from copies and from the LXX were called even with its manuscript variations.
Which "distinct body of writing" was infallibly and magisterially realized by Christ? Leave out the "infallible" part. What distinct body of writing, other than the Septuagint, with all its variations, are you talking about?
Why leave out the LXX? Jesus did need the original manuscripts to called something Scripture. And the fact that He and others did testifies to their being a source called Scripture, which cannot lose its force, and which He much referenced. Likewise the Scriptures abound with references to that which was written.
As for “distinct,” no, we have not full list from then, but the fact that there was such a things as the Scripture separates them from that which was not.
Again, I couldn't possibly care less what Rome, the parent of all protestants in The Faith and to whom you all should show respect,
To the degree that it is the church today that it was when it contended for such Scriptural essentials we agree on, yes, just as we should to Judaism, and to the Jews, though due to the national character of the latter there is a difference. Roman Catholics could also admit the Reformation resulted in needed beneficial reformative effects on itself (and in finally concluding any internal debate on the canon), and in expanding the kingdom of God, even if by “separated brethren.”
I have no idea what you mean when you write of core essentials "...which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority.
The sentence runs, “the “main and plain” things of Scripture are basically just that, and thus those who hold to SS most universally agree with Rome on such core essentials as an articulated in the Nicene Creed, while contending against those which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition.”
SS means Sola Scriptura, while the latter refers to such practices a praying to the departed.
Whose or what "classic concept of tradition"?
The main issue i see in all this is whether a class of men by whom Scripture was discerned assuredly pass on the same discernment via formal ecclesiastical lineage, so that those in one church can teach extra-scriptural and counter-scriptural traditions as being from God, based upon their authority, or whether all must be subject to writings which have been established as from God essentially due to their inherent qualities.
The Orthodox say, “The interpretation of Scripture, even as a guide to personal faith and ethical conduct, is unthinkable apart from the fullness of tradition:..The Holy Spirit abides in the covenanted fellowship, and personal experience, to be fruitful, is confirmed by the Spirit.” But by what is the authority of those who decide what the fullness of tradition is established, and if extra-scriptural traditions are as binding (i assume) as those clearly expressed in Scripture, based upon the same-source logic, then is the canon really closed?
Orthodoxy has always preserved the kerygma of the Apostles. Read this by Fr. Georges Florovsky,
Who says they do? How do we know that the Pharisees were wrong in some of their traditions? When the Orthodox disagree with the RC's then who/what decides the truth???
Thanks for the link. I also found this interesting previously: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf
"To follow the Fathers" does not mean simply to quote their sentences. It means to acquire their mind, their phronema.”
Applicable to studying the Scriptures, but which the apostles preaching was judged. I will read more.
Though it may seem to you that my responses are "emotional" it does not mean that I am scared, least of all, that the "Church was right after all". If that was truly the case I would have no qualms about returning - and I know Mom would be tickled pink! There are even other Catholics on this forum that I know would welcome me with open arms and they have expressed those sentiments often which I genuinely appreciate. Perhaps the reason you think this is because you have expressed your own struggles with your "cradle" faith. I can only attest to my own search for truth and I am confident that I have found it.
I wrote an earlier post to this one where I spoke about my thoughts concerning the role of the "Church" in the Bible that we have today. I'd preferred not to repeat myself so you can look at it if you want to know my thoughts about the subject. It was around ten or fifteen posts ago on this thread.
ph
If you say so.
Perhaps the reason you think this is because you have expressed your own struggles with your "cradle" faith.
Perhaps that's why I recognize the pattern. Unlike so many ex-Catholics who engage here in viciously attacking the Catholic Church, I still love Orthodoxy; I just no longer believe it. There is no struggle, just questions.
I wrote an earlier post to this one where I spoke about my thoughts concerning the role of the "Church" in the Bible that we have today
I thought I was responding to it (5395 or something like that). It's hard to deny that evidence seems to support the Church's position. The Church did write the New Testament and the Church canonized the books you call the Holy Bible.
Well, right there we disagree with the premise. While Apostolic faiths give credit to men for authoring scripture, we give all the credit to God. As Daniel1212 noted, it was God who led the body of believers to gradually accept the correct books that we have today. The organized Church mostly just codified what already was in practice. And if you think about it, Sola Scriptura matches giving God all the credit for the authorship and organization of scripture. For those who give credit to man and Tradition, naturally Sola Scriptura doesn't cut it since men want to add so many things. If God's word really WAS God's word (discussed below), then Tradition could be a stumbling block since it would have the potential to conflict. Sticking with the Bible alone eliminates this possibility.
What you read in the NT (lousy English translations aside) is there because bishops of The Church, the guys who believed in, for example, the Real Presence, said those scriptures were in accord with "what The Church always and everywhere believed", Holy Tradition. The ones that didn't make the cut were not entirely in accord with "what The Church always and everywhere believed".
If true, then I maintain that it is wrongful for these believers to call the Bible "God's word", since it really is, by the belief you just stated, man's word ABOUT God. If men make the decisions on their own authority, then it is BY men. Besides that, I thought that in Orthodoxy what was determined to be "what the Church always and everywhere believed" was not even known or understood for almost a thousand years after the time of Jesus (Revelation). That sounds like quite a while to discover what one has always known. :)
Every time I am convinced that the HS is surely guiding me, however, I remind myself of the hundreds and hundreds of writings of the Desert Fathers about monks whose lives revolved around the scriptures, real people who came to spiritual destruction because they failed to discern that a demon was guiding them rather than the HS. Why has the danger from demonic influence apparently fallen away for Protestants over the past 500 years when for all the billion and a half members of The Church, it is a constant struggle to overcome the wiles of the demons to this day?
I don't think anyone on my side has claimed any sort of immunity from being fooled by satanic forces. We are all engaged in spiritual warfare, which is very real and ongoing. And, we Protestants often succumb to being fooled. But when that does happen, the postmortem analysis will invariably show a substitution of the desires of the person for the teaching of the scripture.
I wouldn't worry so much about comparing myself to those in the distant past on some things because we have had the benefit of their mistakes. For example, there used to be Christian clergy who rationalized that it was right and proper to set up special brothels for themselves. We can laugh (or cry) at that today, but for them there was no conflict. So in some senses our understanding has strengthened since then. It is easy for us to see the scriptural error in what they did. Perhaps 500 years from now they will see error in common decisions we make today that we think are scriptural. So be it, but the only test we need concern ourselves with is the conformity with the image of Christ. That never changes, and we should be able to handle it with reasonable success. All of us here have profound theological differences, but none of us considers for a moment whether Jesus would have approved of brothels for clergy.
FK, I sincerely want to understand, even if I likely won't accept, why you folks believe that you individually can unerringly interpret scripture (corrupted texts notwithstanding), free from the influence of Holy Tradition and safe from demons posing as the HS?
To my knowledge, none of us claims infallible personal scriptural interpretation, even though we do claim leadership by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does give us truths, but not all of them at once. And, as I said, we are not immune from demon attacks. So, it is entirely possible that I could be given a truth which I then foolishly add to as a result of succumbing to my own wants and desires (or demon influence).
But if that happens, then scripture will expose and convict me. I think it is far easier to discover this with the Sola Scriptura approach since we say the Bible interprets itself. Therefore, my error would have to be backed up throughout scripture instead of my just wrongly interpreting one verse. I think that's much harder to do than if there is also a ton of Tradition out there which may indeed agree with my error.
How is it that Western Christianity is riven with hundreds of interpretations of the same passages in scripture?
I don't think that's really true if Western Christianity is really whittled down to the Latins and the Bible-believing Protestants. Of course there are differences, but IMO most of them really can be traced back to a fundamental disagreement about the meaning of a very very few verses. When I think about it, only a small hand-full of words in scripture allegedly give the Apostolic Church plenary power over the Christian faith. I think the vast majority of our disagreements boil down to that fact, does God lead and have authority over the earthly Church or does man (did God delegate to an extraordinary degree)? After this difference, I think we all pretty much agree on the other basics, such as the fundamental identity of Christ, etc.
Do you really believe that "...for some reason it does serve God's purpose for there to be many Christians out there with profound theological differences." Is there any passage in scripture where confusion in the faith is applauded?
Yes, I really believe that. If we all agreed on everything and we were all right, then we would have the full knowledge of God on these matters and not be able to grow any closer to Him. That will never happen here on earth. We are commanded to grow closer to Him. We couldn't if we all already had all the answers.
I'm not sure of any passage that glorifies confusion, but I do remember Metmom quoting from Romans 14 the other day. I think it's relevant here:
This passage appears to fully allow for different interpretations of scripture on certain matters not being any real problem. It isn't a question of Holy Spirit leading correctly or incorrectly for some. The issue is what inspires growth in true faith. Holy Spirit might lead one person to fast once a month, but not another. There is nothing wrong with this.
Contrary-wise what about John 17:20-23? How does a veritable babel of theological opinion advance fulfillment of Christ's prayer?
We are all one on the defining core issues of Christianity. We all believe in the same Christ, that He died for our sins, and that under normal circumstances we need faith in Him for salvation, etc. These have been revealed to all of us in many different ways and I think it points to Christ's prayer. We are to be "brought to complete unity" meaning we start with differences. We won't actually reach complete unity until the next life.
"The main issue i see in all this is whether a class of men by whom Scripture was discerned assuredly pass on the same discernment via formal ecclesiastical lineage, so that those in one church can teach extra-scriptural and counter-scriptural traditions as being from God, based upon their authority, or whether all must be subject to writings which have been established as from God essentially due to their inherent qualities."
This is NOT what Orthodoxy teaches. In fact, it is far from it. Ultimately, the only "infallible" group in The Church is the Laos tou Theou, the People of God, or otherwise the Laity, because without the Great AXIOS of the people, exemplified by the living out of dogma and doctrine in their lives within the liturgical community of The Church, all the dogmatic proclamations and doctrinal pronouncements of hierarchs are nothing. Hierarchs who teach otherwise are sidelined or even removed. The Laos tou Theou are the guardians of Orthodoxy, not the hierarchs.
"The Orthodox say...."
You want to be cautious about your sources, d. The author of the quoted piece is part of a movement, thankfully very small, in the Antiochian Church which has attempted to attract Western converts by dressing Orthodoxy up in Western liturgical forms. It is aggressively "evangelical" and tends towards polemics. To the best of my knowledge it has not been formally condemned as heretical. It should be in my opinion. That said, the article itself, while both prideful and distinctly Western, is generally accurate in its comments about the theology of The Church vis a vis the scriptures.
"When the Orthodox disagree with the RC's then who/what decides the truth???"
The linked article is absolute nonsense. Like I said, be careful of your sources. Quoting drivel hurts your credibility.
"When the Orthodox disagree with the RC's then who/what decides the truth???"
An interesting article which points out the very issue which the theologians from the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches are working on right now in the dialogs on the reestablishment of communion between the Church of Rome and the other Patriarchates and particular churches within The Church; I am not sure why you cited it, however.
Your quote from Fr. Florovsky is a good catch. Phronema is a marvelous word which really doesn't have an English equivalent. Fr. Florovsky's use of the word "mind" is good. "Worldview" is another. We can say that it is the Orthodox Christian way of relating to everything and everyone in this life. It is almost always acquired by living within the liturgical community of The Church because lex orandi, lex credendi. Unless one is raised within that community, it takes years to develop and either way it is always a gift of the Holy Spirit. But when it does, that phronema, which is the same today was it was for, say, +Basil the Great or +Isaac the Syrian, becomes definitional of who and what the Orthodox Christian is because it is as much part of us as the molecules of our skin. And it means that we really do not approach or practice Christianity the way the heterodox do.
Correct, a backtranslation of "gratia plena" gives πλήρης χάριτος; that is because "κεχαριτωμένη" is a near-neologism by Luke. You will find it also once in a deuterocanonical book, forget which, but not in any of the New Testament.
The big fraud here is not the exact way to form an adjective out of grace, but the replacement of grace with favor. While occasionally it is possible -- grace is a kind of favor -- in the contect of the Annunciation it makes it sound a bit pedestrian. "Do me a favor, pal...".
Correct.. The Church has a body of Canonical Law not less complex and perhaps more complex than the rules of Judaism. The difference is that the Church does not say that our laws save anyone. The law helps figuring out correct behavior. Breaking a law can condemn. But following laws does not save.
That matches the Catohlic view of the Church as a collection of hierarchies starting on the family level, where the man of the household is priest, up to the parish level with ministerial preisthood, up to the bishop sovereign in his local Church, and then up to the Pope. On every level the Church Local is a Church Universal scaled down.
It is simply not true that "Rome alone has authority" as you say.
The presence under the appearance of bread and wine begins when the priest asks God to enter the species, and naturally ends when bread and wine dissolve, but Christ is present in all we do at all times.
Indeed, any of the explanations and corrections of heresy do not in themselves convert anyone; it is especially unlikely to convert an active poster who made it a habit of displaying public anti-Catholicism. God converts. My purpose is simply to provide essential knowledge for the reader, -- not necessarily the poster, -- who can do his own thinking.
As one Freeper of anti-Catholic persuasion once admitted to me, -- OK, in the hermeneutical system of Catholicism you do have a complete and consistent view of the scripture. That admission is all I hope to achieve. If after that you turn around and worship Buddha or Luther, that is your business.
Rome agrees that it is faith in Jesus on which His Church is built. This argument is just silly, -- as if giving Peter his defined role took something away from Christ the Giver. When you tell your daughter to clean the room, does your authority decrease or increase?
This argument is just silly, -- as if giving Peter his defined role took something away from Christ the Giver.
It is only made silly because the assertion that Peter was given a role of Pope is unsubstantiated and has been refuted countless times over the ages, here in this forum, and by yours truly just recently.
Since I haven't seen any effort to counter what I previously posted, I consider the observations uncontested and thus agreed to. What then is the problem? Isn't it silly to keep asserting as true what has been demonstrated to be false?
Then you must be holier than St. Luke! For he writes:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the gospel, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; [Luke 1:1-3]
Clearly, he give all credit to himself and other humans, but not to God. Gee, poor Luke would have never passed muster in your assembly!
As Daniel1212 noted, it was God who led the body of believers to gradually accept the correct books that we have today.
How does Daniel know that? Because a man known as Apostle Paul says so? Also, Apostle Paul doesn't specify what constitutes scriptures, or who and how does one determine what writings are scriptures.
The Jews did not agree on that. The Essenes had their own version and canons, and so did the Samaritans (yes, they are also Jews), the Sadducees recognized only the Torah, while the Alexandrian Jews used the Septuagint with the so-called "apocrypha" (not all, as some were actually written in Greek later on). What you call the "Hebrew Bible" today is the canon of Palestinian Pharisees, the only Jewish sect that survied, the rabbinic Judaism (not counting the remaining the 700 or so Samaritans).
Actually, the Church can rightfully claim authorship at of least the New Testament, because all authors of the New Testament were Christians. Surely you'd agree the Church is competent to recognize its own! But the Church is also the author of the codex you call the Christian Bible, as the selection of books that were to be read exclusively was made by the Church hierarchy.
The banal argument that the body of believers gradually came to accept the correct books that we have today is not supported by historical documents. It is a myth. And while it is true that some three hundred years after Christ most local churches contained almost all the books of the Christian Bible, they also contained many heretical ones which is a detail most Christian apologetics today choose to ignore or don't know.
The early Christian alphabet soup had many letters in it, not only those used today but also numerous others that are no longer used, because there was no uniformly agreed upon Christian dogma.
Historical evidence shows without any serious challenge to the contrary that the Catholic Church hierarchy, through its episcopal authority, spooned out everything it didn't consider fit for reading in that soup, and that this was done in a series of episcopal council meetings in the fourth century—but only after the very same Church set in stone the Christian dogma (the First and Second Ecumenical Councils of the 4th century).
So the selection was made in accordance with the Church dogma, which is based on the Holy Tradition (understanding here that the Greek word paradosis doesn't mean tardition in the modern Engish sense of the word), which is itself base don the Aposotlic faith passed on by the succesisve bishops, and their collecitve interpretation of the scriptures, and in accordance with the way the Church worshiped (lex orandi, lex credendi), since the Eastern liturgical service of today (The Divine Liturigies of SS. Basil and John Chrysostom) reflect and coincide with that time period of theological and canonical consolidation of Christian faith directly by the Church authority.
So, the theological basis and the actual codification of the Christian Bible to the exclusion of all other books took place in the Catholic Church and under Catholic Church's episcopal authority, and not, as the Protestants confabulate, through some sui generis "spiritual" guidance of the lay believers.
So, it is really disingenuous for the Protestants to insist that the Church has no spiritual authority when it comes to scriptures, when it is clear that the they accept, by necessity, the decision of the Church as to what constitutes Christian canon.
““The point is, everything the Church tells us you have to take on faith. If you think the Church lies to you about Mary, why do you believe the Church when she gives you the Gospel? The source is the same.”
If you don’t believe I’m Superman why would you believe I can fly?
Lying about what? If he wrote what he believed then he wasn't lying, FK.
John's Gospel is presented as his eyewitness account of what he saw and what Jesus taught. It is presented as fact, not John's opinion. There is no supposition or conjecture. Therefore, if what he wrote is wrong he is either a liar or crazy.
What he wrote is that the Spirit "will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears." That doesn't sound like God. He will glorify Jesus because he will take what Christ's, and that is the same as the Father's. That doesn't describe someone co-equal.
In the proper context it is fully consistent with co-equality. Many times the Bible explains concepts that are in truth beyond our complete comprehension in terms we can best understand. What is described here are roles of Persons, for our benefit, not superior-subordinate relationships. Throughout all of the Gospels Jesus says that He is there to do the will of the Father, yet no Christian interprets this to mean the Son is inferior to the Father. To interpret this theme as a superior-subordinate relationship is to simply declare the whole of Christianity void on its face.
So, then, hypothetically speaking, if you found yourself in the same situation as Lot did, you would offer your daughters?
Lot offered up his daughters to be raped because he believed the greater evil would have been to allow harm to come to his guests. As you know, at that time the Law had not yet been handed down, however some measure of it was nonetheless on the hearts of men. That being said, I can't imagine anything Godly that Lot could have thought that compelled him to make the offer. His goal was noble and Godly, but I don't think his solution was since it doesn't appear it was an either-or situation. He could have prayed for deliverance, or fought to his own death, or perhaps something else. It isn't clear to me at all that Lot's only way to give glory to God in that situation was to offer up his own daughters.
FK: Incidentally, Yates would fail this test in claiming her idea was from God because scripture strongly condemns what she did.
Not really. The Biblical story of a man who promises God that he will sacrifice to him the first living thing he sees when he returns home, sees his beloved daughter and sacrifices her to God and God doesn't stop him, is am example of such insanity.
But the lesson from that story was to NOT take an oath lightly or in haste. The man was wrong to make the oath. God allowed the sacrifice NOT because He approved of the oath, but to uphold the law concerning oaths. So, God did not inspire or support the making of the oath and likewise God was not behind what Yates did.
I have heard Protestants tell me "God told me." If they believe God told them, are they going to tempt God (and doubt their faith) by checking the scriptures?!? It's not like Paul telling the Bereans, who then check the scriptures to see if this man Paul is right.
There can be any manner of surety behind "God told me." If the surety is high it means the person is certain that whatever it is, it is consistent with scripture. If not positive, then of course consulting scripture is a proper check. Any time words equivalent to "God told me" have entered my mind it was an easy slam dunk as to being a Godly (scriptural) thing. A couple of years ago I got home from the grocery store and noticed that they had miscounted and I had a $10 item they did not charge me for (the classic hypo). "God told me" to notify them and ask how to make amends. No scriptural consult was necessary, and before I became a Christian the idea would never have occurred to me. I would just have considered it my lucky day.
Imagine if Abraham said "I don't believe you! Prove to me that this is all for the glory of you!" In other words, you really don't trust the "indwelling Spirit" but rather have to check up on him? That's pretty gutsy—for a believer.
God's communication with Abraham was not like it is today, and we have to remember that Abraham was truly a "man of God", an extremely mature believer. Being that mature and close to God made it much easier for him to discern God from demons or satan. IOW, if my faith was as advanced as Abraham's was, then I would know the Bible backwards and forwards and sideways and would rarely, if ever, need to consult it. I would already know. I'm nowhere near there yet, but am thankful to God that I get a tiny bit closer every day.
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.