Posted on 12/30/2010 12:11:03 PM PST by GonzoII
Not so fast. Note the passive voice, “are built”. The doer of the building (still exclusively Jesus) is not defined in this passage:
Eph 2:19-20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
As for the passage in Corinthians, yes, I agree, Paul uses building in reference to his activity and that of others on behalf of believers. Please note though that Paul does not take any credit for actually building the Church in the sense Jesus used. Indeed, he specifically asserts that only God can get the credit for any actual “increase,” and as that is not specifically limited to increasing church membership, it might also entail any individual spiritual growth resulting from the activity of Paul and the others.
Also note that as the passage flows, we are all “builders” in the lesser sense, in that while we can have no foundation other than Jesus, each of us may adorn that foundation with things worthy or things unworthy:
1Cor 3:6-15: I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Therefore, my statement, that Jesus alone is the builder of his church, still stands, because I do not dispute that we participate in the life of the church, but with Paul I stand for the proposition that it is only God who gives the increase, and only Jesus who is the foundation for that increase. That is how I understand what Jesus said when he declared that he would build his church. There, as here, the referent is Jesus, not Peter. I am sorry if my previous formulation of that idea was not clear for you.
Psalm 127:1 A Song of Ascents. Of Solomon. Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain.
Peace,
SR
God is Christ and Christ is God, and God did die on the cross.
God wasn’t in Christ. God is Christ!
You are right that God, the Holy Spirit was in Christ, but Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So God is Christ and God is in Christ, and God rules over Christ. All at the same time.
“Yet I site the writings of your own Church fathers and historians.”
You cited that St. Thomas Aquinas rejected Perpetual Virginity. He did not. I cite evidence from the summa that he was a defender of perpetual virginity. I therefore conclude that you haven’t read St. Thomas Aquinas and are therefore ignorant of his opinion.
That you cited him to bolster your opinion suggests to me that you are copying and pasting from someone else who didn’t do their homework.
Then rather then admitting and owning up to your mistake you persist. Does that to me suggest intellectual honesty?
“I wonder if you guys do that to impress each other on how much you study Latin (instead of using that time to study the Scriptures)...”
Well considering as the Scriptures were mostly only in Latin for over a thousand years, understanding Latin would be at least beneficial to understanding scripture...
But do go on. Latin, after all is a dead language, and the only true language to understand scripture is English. Which is why Iscool has a first volume tyndale on his desk which he refers to regularly...
Jesus, God is not the sole builder. Rather He is the designer and the cornerstone. We are to build upon his foundation, but He is always to direct how we build.
While God could most definitely do it alone, He chose not to. He chose to use people. Paul says he completes the work begun by Jesus, but does so because of Jesus, not because Jesus left anything unfinished.
Jesus is the Good News, His commission to the apostles was to share it and bring it to all the world. Thus, He is the cornerstone and we are the builders(doers).
“I don’t know that they had to be approved by each Apostle”
That’s what Ireneus is saying here, that Scriptures were approved by the Apostles prior to being distributed to the Church.
“In fact, Peter accepted Paul’s writing as scripture, but why??? Was it because of what could be proven by Peter or was it because Peter knew Paul was an Apostle and his preaching/writing was authorative???”
Why would it be one or the other? Paul was authoritative in that God had elevated him to become an Apostle, along with Peter and the rest. Had God not done so, Paul would not be authoritative.
“If you believe that, then you certainly know as I do that the Canon of the scripture ended with the words of John in Revelation, ‘Even so, come Lord Jesus’...”
Well of course. Which is why Luther decided that his canon was superior. Possessing a first edition bible handed down to him and his order from John himself. Oh wait, no that wasn’t the case.
Excellent point. I just wanted to clarify that I did write built, not build. Christ built his Church and we add on from there.
Thanks for correcting me.
“Which is what Christ did with Matthew. He explicitly said that his Church would prevail, and that he was building his Church on Peter, the Rock. That’s a pretty strong clue that the office is intended to be passed on from one holder to another.”
Clues and overt statements are two very different things.
One is an assumption. One is stated. I build doctrine
on specific stated truths. I don’t draw between the lines
to connect dots that appear on the same page. Do as you
wish.
“Does it make sense to interpret the passage as saying that the Key is a one-time gift to Peter that would not be handed down to anyone else, while at the same time claiming that your Church would be perpetual? Hardly.”
Yes. I believe Peter was given authority in the Kingdom,
not in the Church on earth.
Again, for your perspective here, you are assuming. I do
not find arguments from silence persuasive.
best,
ampu
But deceived willfully...
>>You cited that St. Thomas Aquinas rejected Perpetual Virginity.<<
I do believe that was on the ASSUMTPTION of Mary, at least it was meant to be. If I used St. Thomas Aquinas as it pertains to the virginity I truly was wrong.
IOW, the Church magisterium:)
Heavens no, I mean those who believe the bible as written and do not add imagined doctrine.
Nice and succinct. Thanks for making the point better than I did!
Look back at your post. You stated that “all Jerome argued” was that their were no Hebrew translations of the Apocrapha.
That is unfactual. Wikipedia isn’t going to help you, you have to go deeper. We can agree that you can find church fathers on both sides of canonicity. So that may not be as helpful as many would claim: so we have to turn to facts.
Since the Jews were the custodians of the OT Scripture, don’t you think that no Hebrew translations are a MAJOR indicator they were not accepted?
Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are really topics for textual criticism, not for discussions on the canon. I go for the Textus Receptus anyway because they agree with the Masoretic Text; but its a texual criticism issue.
The early church rejected the apocrypha, as did the Hebrews.
Review all of the early church rejections: it doesn’t leave room for the Council of Trent in 1546 to recognize them because the canon was already closed.
If you researched how the aprocypha is at odds with Scripture, it would be an interesting study. Sola Scriptura is only possible via a normal plain interpretation.
Finally, Jesus himself authenticated the OT canon. That is the best argument.
Well ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Are we discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary or her Assumption?
If it’s her assumption, then I will concede that there’s no evidence that we currently possess of it being taught prior to the 5th century, when the then Patriarch of Jerusalem brought it up at Chalcedon, that her tomb was known and that it was empty.
The question then becomes why wasn’t this known prior? For one, there seems to be doubt after John’s death in 112, as to where she was buried, whether it was in Ephesus or in Jerusalem. This question would not be settled until Juvenal’s testimony at Chalcedon.
That, plus the general upheaval in Jerusalem in the period from 70-170, the complete destruction of the Church there, something that wouldn’t be rectified until the time of Constantine, where the Church of the Nativity and the shrines of Christ were constructed.
Now it may be that evidence does in fact exist that we don’t possess, I don’t know.
By their fruits you shall know them.What exactly in your mind are fruits if not good works?
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.
James is speaking of the TYPE of FAITH. Saving Faith produces good fruit.
Mental assent or demon faith does not save and will only have bad fruit.
Any kind of work on our part is NOT salvific and totaly incompatible with Grace (undeserved merit, mercy) according to Paul in the book of Romans
actually, it always is...
Jerome, despite his misgivings about the source material and lacking hebrew originals, still chose to include the books in the Canon. Thus, he’s not the evidence you are looking for to justify excluding books from the Canon.
That being said, I’m not even sure in the case of Macabbees that there is a hebrew original. It is the latest of the books, and written at a time when Greek was predominent. Jerome, only writing 400 years later doesn’t even know the answer to this question, and he’s much closer to the source material than we are.
“We can agree that you can find church fathers on both sides of canonicity.”
WRT to the NT. yes. On the OT, they all pretty much say the same thing. They use the Septuagint. We see it in Sinaiticus. We see it in Vaticanus. Even Jerome who is your strongest source (which is why you are using him), includes them. The first person to exclude them from the Canon, is none other than Luther.
“Since the Jews were the custodians of the OT Scripture, don’t you think that no Hebrew translations are a MAJOR indicator they were not accepted?”
Given that the Jews wrote and published the Septuagint, I don’t see it as a compelling argument that they considered these books to be out of the canon. I don’t see them arguing back in 30BC that these books ought to be excluded.
“Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are really topics for textual criticism, not for discussions on the canon.”
They are concrete evidence that the early Church did in fact use these books, and include them.
“I go for the Textus Receptus anyway because they agree with the Masoretic Text; but its a texual criticism issue.”
The reason you don’t like Vaticanus or Sinaiticus is that they are evidence in opposition to the Masoretic text. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are older than the Masoretic text.
“The early church rejected the apocrypha, as did the Hebrews.”
Which is why the Jews wrote the Septuagint?
“If you researched how the aprocypha is at odds with Scripture, it would be an interesting study. Sola Scriptura is only possible via a normal plain interpretation.”
Sola scriptura + a canon without some books are contradictory. Either accept all the books or deny Sola Scriptura. The argument seems to be ‘books which I don’t like ought to be tossed out’, which is hardly an argument for Sola Scriptura.
“Finally, Jesus himself authenticated the OT canon. That is the best argument.”
Which is why he left us a list of books...
“I build doctrine on specific stated truths.”
Yet you say:
“Peter was given authority in the Kingdom, not in the Church on earth.”
Wow. Ok. This is despite the fact that Christ explicitly tells Peter, ‘Whatsoever you bind on Earth, shall be bound on Heaven?’
Sounds to me that Peter’s being given both, authority in the Kingdom, and authority in the Church on Earth, such that his authority in the Church on earth (bind on Earth), shall extend to heaven (bound in heaven).
It's always impressive to see someone who can believe 2 impossible things before breakfast. Disturbing, but impressive.
Pray to Mary or "saints"?
Call your "priest" "Father"?
Believe in Papal infallibility?
How about Purgatory or Limbo?
Catholic apologists have a long list of anti-biblical baloney to defend.
>>Are we discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary or her Assumption?<<
I was having a conversation with someone else on the virginity but didn’t use Aquinas as I do know that he did hold that to be true. We may be confusing the two conversations.
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.