Posted on 02/10/2013 6:24:05 AM PST by don-o
Q: Okay, so we’ve worked our way through the uncounted millennia between the emergence of man and the first glimmers of revelation, then the six-thousand-something years it took God to gradually tease out what he had in mind for mankind. On the face of it, the whole thing seems suspicious. Why go through all these fits and starts? Why feed us a series of tantalizing hints, to spice up a steady diet of red herrings and dead ends? Why—if God is so simple, perfect, and benevolent—did he reveal himself to mankind through a series of clues it would take Sherlock Holmes to figure out? Or, if it pleases you, Father Brown?
A: Elementary, my dear godson. What we’ve derived so far from considering revelation is (a) that God is in Himself a perfect unity, but also (b) that His essence is in some sense refracted, as if one ray of light were passing through three distinct lenses, each of which is a Person. That tells us that the primitive rational insight into God’s unity was true but incomplete. Likewise the original revelation of the One God to the Israelites. Within the very essence of God is a nexus of relationships, which He revealed is one of love between a Father, a Son, and a Spirit Who “proceeds” from their interaction. Already, then, there’s something embedded in the very essence of things that tests our brains till they bleed. Add in the intellectual jiu-jitsu required to account for Christ’s divine and human natures—a doctrine that’ll tackle us later—and it almost seems as if God’s purpose all along in revealing Himself to man was to provoke complex heresies, interminable Church councils, and impenetrable tomes in Greek and Latin devoted to explaining the inexplicable.
No wonder so many different sects emerged over the centuries, each devoted to seizing one piece of each of these mysteries and making sure it wasn’t forgotten—at the cost of denying something else of equal importance. Remember the joke about the blind men describing the elephant? One grabs the trunk and declares it a snake, the next the leg and calls it a tree, et cetera? That joke was first told at the Council of Chalcedon by Bishop Pachasinus of Lilybaeum to Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople.
Have some one explain this to you. I said if you go ONLY for the fellowship or the music.
OK. How do those verses apply to post 30?
They are not of the same thinking as post 30.
Why did you post those three Bible verses?
Read post 31, then the 3 verses.
The believing/faith God places in us does not confuse.
He is immutable.
Proverbs 25:2
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
When the RCC returns to God through faith in Christ, it might have an opportunity to lead more believers. Until that time, while many members of the RCC are also members of the Catholic Church, the RCC falls short of the Catholic Church.
How 'bout you explain it because that IS NOT what you said...This is what you said...
Christ wants us to uncomfortable in our sin, not go to a place of worship that has good fellowship or great music.
Sure...All denominations who add to or take away from the words of God...You guys know who you are...
You are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the Gates of Hell will never prevail against it.
While it is true that some Catholics have left Christ, the Church has never deviated one iota.
Why the reluctance to name names?
Because as believers, we do not need to accuse others to grow in faith in Christ. He knows our hearts.
All of them, to varying degrees, and because they cling to the lies propagated by Rome, rather than relying upon YHWH and His Word...
That's funny - Because I see that to be entirely the other way around.
See my post #30.
Do yourself a big favor go read some stuff about the disagreements between Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. Then read about the disagreements between Calvin and Michael Servectus.
After that look into the disagreement between the Texas Baptist convention and the SBC over the issue of homosexuality.
How about the Episcopal church dealing with the ordination of women, practicing homosexuals.
Each of these groups claimed to be sola scriptura followers and ended up with radically different beliefs.
I already replied to your post #30.
Do yourself a big favor go read some stuff about the disagreements between Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. Then read about the disagreements between Calvin and Michael Servectus. After that look into the disagreement between the Texas Baptist convention and the SBC over the issue of homosexuality. How about the Episcopal church dealing with the ordination of women, practicing homosexuals.
Each of these groups claimed to be sola scriptura followers and ended up with radically different beliefs.
I am reasonably conversant with all of the above. So what?
How can Sola Scriptura be a legitimate precept when it has led to such diversity of practices and beliefs?
How many different protestant denominations are that each claim to be "Bible Believeing", yet have such a difference between them.
Perfect example: This woman is sueing her former church over their performance of a gay marriage> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/gay-marriage-splits-african-american-church/
Westboro baptist has a slightly different view.
Both claim to be Sola Scriptura.
Roamer_1: All of them, to varying degrees, and because they cling to the lies propagated by Rome, rather than relying upon YHWH and His Word...
Well, making the errors of Rome your reference point is one way to go. That once was mine. Then came a time when I had to look at my own beliefs – not only the content but also where they originated.
The sola scriptura assertion that I had embraced without question began to trouble me because my religious tradition (Baptist and nondenom Bible church) was pretty good at pointing out the erro.rs of not only Rome, but also the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Charismatics, etc. Yet, they ALL affirmed sola scriptura.
I was left with two alternatives:
1. There was deception – they did not all follow the sola principle
2. The sola principle was flawed.
I recognized that human sinfulness could account for my #1. Yet, why did I not see examples of sola believers coming together? Should not constant Bible study and the leading of the Holy Spirit be tending towards more unity? Note well what our Lord prayed in John 17:21.
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Why is the trend exactly the opposite that we see under the banner of sola scriptura? ; i.e. more fragmentation?
I have yet to see that question answered. The sola principle is flawed.
There really isn't that much difference in beliefs wrt orthodoxy in Protestantism - There is the great Arminian/Calvinist divide, and the Anglican/Lutheran strains, whose liturgical base makes them a way-point somewhere between you and I (while still accepted politely among the Protestants and Evangelicals)... There is a difference in hierarchical vs. congregational order... Other than that, it is more a matter of emphasis than disagreement.
Where there is disagreement, it is usually a matter of apostasy taking hold, or matters wherein the greater apostasy of Rome was not rejected... Bearing in mind, of course, that none are without the stain of Rome. It is well and good that the Protestants protested. It's just that they did not protest enough.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but the truth ids you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
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.