Posted on 02/28/2013 6:52:42 AM PST by Gamecock
Sure, all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work, but Scripture is far more than a book or theology, reducing God and His plan for us to a set of facts to be lined up and picked off and when you get them all, you're good.
Scripture has been called God's love letter to us. God doesn't want us to merely know about Him but to know Him. Demons know facts about God but are not in relationship with Him.
All this debate about theology misses the main points of the fact that Scripture is God communicating with us. We are washed of water with the word. God's word can be hidden in the heart that we might not sin against Him. As we meditate on His word, whatever we do prospers. The word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
God speaks to us through His word to guide us in situations, to give us guidance, to bring us comfort.
The Bible is not merely an historical account, a book of theology, to be analyzed and expounded upon, and tested on. What an affront to God and the heart of God, and to His Word.
When some take the same source to mean something contrary, like no real presence in the Eucharist, the Church holds to the truth.
You know what? If the real presence is in the communion elements, they are there whether anyone believes it or not. If they're not there, then all the believing in the world doesn't make them there. The facts of the matter stand apart in their own reality, whether anyone believes them or not.
You believe that they are there, I don't. I see it as a ceremony of remembrance.
One of us is right and one of us is wrong and some day, we'll find out who.
But it certainly isn't because some group of men are self-proclaimed authorities and have decided that it's so.
what equates with the idea of "canon" in regards to OT, was set by the Jews themselves...
Yes, there is a split between Judaism and Christianity about the time of the canons. The Church holds to hers, the Septuagint at the time of Christ, the Jews to theirs from then and later. Part of the reasoning is due to the split, if something was used by Christians, it was subject to being removed or changed later in Judaism. An example is the interpretation of "virgin" for Christians and "young woman" for Jews.
Many too much mistake their own church for being God
We don't see it as our "own" church but rather as the Church established by Christ; we are as His family, and also the body of Christ with Christ as the head, in communion with the Saints.
I realize you don't have this view or belief; just wanted to clarify.
That sort of thing is God's own province. Only He knows no boundaries, save for His very own, which only He himself knows perfectly.
I agree. Thanks for your reply.
I agree with a great many of your points here. Debate on theology must not mean we think our main purpose is to get the theology right. It is about love as you say.
If the real presence is in the communion elements, they are there whether anyone believes it or not.
We read St. Paul to say not discerning the body has consequences. You likely know that Holy Eucharist is the at the center of our worship.
I'm kinda disagreeing with you here, because I don't think this is just theology (the how, transubstantiation, consubstatiation.. is definitely theology). We believe it is important beyond the theology.
But in the main, I am solidly behind your position in your post and thank you for posting it.
Baloney! It just goes on and on. The Jews of Jerusalem did not accept the ALL the books found in the Septuagint as being what was their accepted canon, at the time of Christ.
I write page after page of refutations (but do not post them) for the refutations themselves touch upon too much for to be included in shortened commentary, as they must, for the argument of Romish apologetic is so frequently one of implication and therefores based upon questionable if not faulty premise.
I said they were in the Septuagint. And there are references to the Septuagint, including the Deuterocanonical books, in the New Testament.
If we wished to include in our canon and teach only that which is acceptable to Judaism, we would be Jews. There was a split, we have different canons and teaching about the interpretation of scripture, both old and new testaments. This is what makes us Christians.
thanks for your reply.
I guess I should repost what you added;
What is often missed is that the intercession by the mother here resulted in the death of the supplicant she was interceding for. (1Kg. 2:12-25)Thus the only example of a Queen mother interceding to the king is a negative one.
Also, Mary now being crowned and reigning with Christ contradicts Scripture which teaches the rewarding and reigning of believers does not happen until the Lord’s return. (Rev. 11:18; 20:6; 22:12; 1Cor. 3: 8-11; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8)
...for it is worth repeating. When we look to the implications, if we were to follow the same approach of comparison as was seeming used to take us from Bathsheba as queen mother...to Mary as Queen of Heaven, doing so opens up other unavoidable comparative symbologies, inevitably leading to inclusion of concepts extremely indelicate, thus unmentionable, beyond simply "death".
By which it can be seen to start off bad and just keep on going...but minus the humor of bugs bunny taking a left turn at Albuquerque.
I think I see where we’re talking past each other. It is in the difference between acceptable Jewish writing and canonical books. I mean to describe the Septuagint as acceptable to Jews not as comprising their canon. Later, parts of the Septuagint were not acceptable to Jews, they were removed in this sense, what was acceptable changed.
The Church takes the Septuagint as canon, Jews finished their canon, as far we know, around 100 A.D. We’re talking about Rabbinical Jews and this excludes the Torah of course which is centuries earlier.
I do equate the Septuagint with the Hebrew canon and hope this clarifies.
If you can't avoid them, you'll run into the same problems with king, god-king, etc. etc. etc.
I think sometimes you find what you wish to find in the manner you wish to find it.
:)
I'm not confusing anything. What I posted was a straight quote from Wikipedia supporting this author's historical knowledge. Apparently there are some who would disagree with your timeline assertions. As shocking as this might be, these folks are just as prominent as yourself-perhaps more so-in historical knowledge.
I really don’t waste my time with wikipedia much. After all the people who rely on it can’t tell the difference between 1309 and 1377.
Pity you don't "waste" your time with Wikipedia as it offers very good information on a variety of topics. The research done by others and checked by many might have saved you from making embarassing accusations and showing such a bias understanding of history.
As a starter you may wish to investigate of word "moron" that you so causally threw out with derision:
1. Informal. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
One should first examine the log in their own eye before they rush to the twigs in others.
You wrote:
“I’m not confusing anything.”
You certainly are confusing truth with falsehood. Either you mistake 1309 for 1377 or you make the mistake that a quote about 1377 actually applies to 1309. There are no other possibilities. So, which is it?
“What I posted was a straight quote from Wikipedia supporting this author’s historical knowledge.”
Uh, no. You see 1377 is not 1309. What I said about all those years from 1309 until the 1370s was true, factual, and irrefutable. Thus, what Horton said was untrue. What you claimed about my supposed lack of knowledge of history was untrue as well. And your continued claim that 1377 is 1309 is also false.
Do you know that 1309 and 1377 are two different years? Seriously, I have to ask that because you essentially are claiming they are the same year and that everything which happened between them is the same as what happened after 1377 - which is logically impossible.
“Apparently there are some who would disagree with your timeline assertions.”
No reputable historian would. Again, the quote you posted said 1377 and not 1309. Thus, I was right and Horton was wrong - and you were wrong too. Again, just to make sure you know this now: 1377 IS NOT 1309. The two years are not the same.
“As shocking as this might be, these folks are just as prominent as yourself-perhaps more so-in historical knowledge.”
Again, no. 1377 is still NOT 1309. You posted something about 1377 AND NOT 1309. Your own quote goes AGAINST what Horton said. That’s what makes this so funny. Horton got it wrong. You defended him by posting a quote that shows Horton was wrong and apparently you can’t even see that.
Again, 1377 is NOT 1309.
“Pity you don’t “waste” your time with Wikipedia as it offers very good information on a variety of topics.”
The problem here is that the user is posting something from Wikipedia that goes against what he actually is claiming: Again, 1377 is NOT 1309. There are 68 years between those two years. You do realize that, right?
“The research done by others and checked by many might have saved you from making embarassing accusations and showing such a bias understanding of history.”
LOL! The “research done” shows I was right from the beginning since what you quoted says 1377 and not 1309. You apparently cannot tell the difference between two entirely different years in two entirely different decades.
“As a starter you may wish to investigate of word “moron” that you so causally threw out with derision”.
No, thanks, I have used the term “moron” perfectly and appropriately in this thread.
“I find the author to be neither “notably stupid” nor “lacking in good judgment”.”
Coming from someone who apparently can’t tell the difference between 1309 and 1377 that is a meaningless conclusion.
“Now if you would care to explain how you came to the conclusion based upon his dates, which are supported by other scholars, that this author is a “moron” by this definition;”
You have made this false claim now several times: “his dates, which are supported by other scholars”. Until the time (which is never) that 1309 and 1377 become one and the same year and all the decades between them somehow evaporate, Horton’s claim will be false and no reputable historian agrees with him.
“then I’m sure we would all delight in hearing your wisdom and benefiting from your fine education. But you’ve offered no scholarly rebuttal to the author’s timeline. Personally, if I was your teacher, I’d give you a D-.”
Well, when you can tell me when 1377 became 1309 let me know. You see you’re arguing that those two years are the same when they are not. How can anyone who does not accept the fact that those are two different years be considered rational?
“One should first examine the log in their own eye before they rush to the twigs in others.”
Beams, twigs, splinters or whatever other size chunks of wood you want to talk about won’t change the fact that 1309 is NOT 1377. Horton was wrong. You are wrong. I am right: 1377 is not 1309. That will never change.
It is autocratic as Rome is effectively answerable to no one and irreprovable when she speaks infallibly.
Holy Scripture is integral to the Church.
That is what is said by her and such sola ecclesia groups, but regardless of the esteem Rome profess for Scripture, under Rome, the only interpretation of Scripture, and even what it consists of, only has authority if Rome gives it. Likewise under the LDS, rather than establishment of truth being dependent upon Scriptural substantiation. .
Nor is the veracity of Catholic teaching dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation and warrant, as praying to the departed, the assumption of Mary, etc, example, only that they cannot contradict Scripture, but which really means that it is only required that Rome does not see any conflict.
The beliefs are the same, that's partly how the Church chose what to include - they teach the same things.
You mean the RCC as regards the official level, and in a limited scope, and note the entire Catholic church, as besides the fact that there can be and is disagreement about many things in Rome, the EOs have significant disagreements with Rome.
And while we are at it, nor do evangelical churches overall lack a basic unity based on certain core truths (despite their many tribes), and thus they contend against cults and Rome, and testify to greater commitment and conservative values than Catholics overall.
Your lack of specificity in this aside, my reasoning is the same: it is the Church established by Christ with Him as the head and guided by the Holy Spirit to be the pillar and foundation of truth.
What lacks specificity i know not, but like many RCs, you continue to engage in argument by assertion, that Rome is The Church, but the reasoning behind the typical Rc argument for it presumes that being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation, and inheritor of Divine promises, and having historical decent makes such the infallible interpreter of Scripture, and without whose sanction one cannot have authority.
And which remains the argument of others if not yours, but which remains unknown.
Note also that it is said of Mary that,
When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God.
Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246.
RCs invoke Bathsheba as typifying Mary because the king would refuse no request of hers, yet the only example of her intercession was done in good faith, but has a very negative result , thus one should instead prefer to seek intercession from the only One whom the Holy Spirit says “is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. “ (Hebrews 7:25) And to whom believers come directly to, and there is not need to pray to anyone else in Heaven.
Perhaps if you limit it to "evangelical" as normal meaning the belief-set arising in the US in 18-19th century.
They of course had their differences in the various denominations from which they split.
If, however, we look at the whole of sola scriptura doctrine churches we have more lack of unity on soteriology and Christology.
I want to stress, again, my point here is not to argue one of these doctrines against the other, but to say that sola scriptura in practice fails to result in one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Thanks for your reply.
thanks very much for your post...
I think it would be a great idea if the Catholic Church, as it decides on who should be the new Pope to lead them into this next millennium, made a clean break with all the extraneous hoopla and regalia, the sumptuous palaces and elaborate clothing and headgear. Think how much money could be diverted to genuine needs if the big cheese wore nice business suits and normal shoes? If he lived in a modest home and drove around in modest vehicles? If he flew commercial (first class, of course) instead of private jets? If all the other semi-big cheeses dressed that way as well? Somehow, I just cannot envision St. Peter, had he arrived on the scene today, putting up with the finery, pomp and royal treatment. Something tells me Jesus would have expected a bit more humility than what tries to pass herself off as HIS church.
Of course the Church is autocratically ruled by Christ, her head.
We have a problem in America with being 'ruled', some one else telling us what is good or true; heck, telling us anything. We wish to be self-sufficient individuals on our own - down with the King! This is a good thing when it comes to government, not so good when it comes to religion; we can easily end up with subjectivism and relativism and culturally influenced to an extreme degree; and, my point, a multitude of 'churches'.
I know you don't agree that the Church is what the Church says - else we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the answers to your questions are not new, and they all have as their foundation the belief in the Church as in Holy Scripture, visible as well as invisible, the body of Christ, with authority, etc. They all flow from that and are logically and scripturally answered from this base. Or pillar and foundation. :)
My point here is that if it were intended that each individual determine the Christian faith... well, that fails as we see.
As for the "autocratic rule," the same objection applies when each individual is their own Church, interpreter, theologian, etc., If that is the objection, it is not avoided outside the Church, to wit:
[Each individual] is effectively answerable to no one and irreprovable…
Thanks again.
I found what I did (and was shocked) not because I wanted to, but by sticking with the same basis of reasoning employed in the beginning to tie Bathesheba as "queen" since she be mother to the king, to the elevation of that position to the Heavenlies idea, following that line or pretext to the logical sets of questions/investigations/conclusions, doing so but having to somewhat set aside fuller context of who and what the eternal Creator is, for the jump from earth to Heaven was the wrong ladder, the wrong staircase from the onset.
Once that model was set, it had to be followed, for God never changes the rules once what He sets in motion begins to move, to adjust the outcome to suit conditions or whims, for from His perspective all is known, nothing "discovered along the way" as it is for you or I.
It could only be by my own choice if I was the one who had cooked up the initial reasonings in the first place. I didn't, nor would I have, for I have a some direct sense of who He is, and what He can be like. Usually patient, always direct, succinct but generous, attentive to all that is, all at once, and quite frightening when He's irritated.
Someday, if someone pushes that scripture again as justification for the "Queen of Heaven" business, I might take us all down that path of logic and considerations...but I must warn you, that just as daniel1212 showed plainly that death was the result for the individual the "queen sought intervention for", and as I pointed out, that death was otherwise "in the house" as the associated scriptures clearly indicate (not Bathsheba's fault perhaps, but connected with how she became queen in the first place) and the sin and type of excesses her son the king (that king also a unavoidably a part of the comparison) result in the ways of death...remain forever there, just_as_God_spoke and said it would be so. Some of it is not pretty to look at...for there is the "if this" then "that" must be sort of thing, while incorporating and continually testing with what can be known of Him as found in scripture, with the model continuing based on earthly mother/son relationship with all it's implications, continuing that same line throughout, following each set of questions. Not fun, I tell you. I think perhaps you have not thought the thing through yourself, or even begun to...perhaps what I mean by following the initial logic... isn't understood?
No special pleadings are allowed. If she be like that mother to that king, and if it all be proper exegesis in the first place, then it must be followed consistently to the end, or else set aside as not tenable, if it take those things holy and makes them something else. Yet where did we start, but in context of a relationship with sin going both directions...from how she got there, to all that followed.
We've been trying to tell ya'll it dont work. It's busted. defective from the factory.
When we set off on that sort of ill-concieved journey...should one expect a rainbow aura'd pony or unicorn to show up in the backyard, instead?
Do we think His word stops, becomes of none effect just because the earthly critters he spoke over have went the way of all flesh? Not a safe assumption, for His words ring forever.
He's like that, with He alone of all (compared to all of mankind, that is) always always always consistent.
Once the path is chosen, there being no variableness or shadow of turning in Him, all that may either serve His purpose or oppose the same movement, is either utilized or dealt with to the utterly utmost, with all unfolding perfectly according to His intent and plan. Thankfully for us, His intents are toward the good for us (He knows what's good for us) and His movements tempered by great mercy.
Holy is our God
That's a dandy set of loaded dice you've got there.
You wrote:
“I think it would be a great idea if the Catholic Church, as it decides on who should be the new Pope to lead them into this next millennium, made a clean break with all the extraneous hoopla and regalia, the sumptuous palaces and elaborate clothing and headgear. Think how much money could be diverted to genuine needs if the big cheese wore nice business suits and normal shoes?”
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. The “extraneous hoopla and regalia, the sumptuous palaces and elaborate clothing and headgear” already exists. Very little even has to be made to his size because numerous examples already exist. It would be more expensive to go out and buy Italian suits and shoes than to simply use what clothing already exists in the Vatican. Besides, we WANT him to use the traditional clothing.
“If he lived in a modest home and drove around in modest vehicles?”
The pope’s apartment is very modest - it just happens to be in a palatial complex. I want him to stay there. Also, I can’t think of a more modest vehicle than the popemobile. No frills at all.
“If he flew commercial (first class, of course) instead of private jets?”
That right there shows your ignorance. He flies Alitalia - a commercial jet that is chartered for him when he makes a trip. He has no private jet.
“If all the other semi-big cheeses dressed that way as well? Somehow, I just cannot envision St. Peter, had he arrived on the scene today, putting up with the finery, pomp and royal treatment.”
He wouldn’t have a choice honestly.
“Something tells me Jesus would have expected a bit more humility than what tries to pass herself off as HIS church.”
Jesus expected humility from people - and Benedict is so humble he can walk away from all of this without a problem and live the rest of his life in seclusion. Remember, from his publications alone he was already well off before becoming pope. And the last 8 years his books have sold in the millions - and he turns that revenue over to the Church. He could continue to make quite a bit of money and live like a millionaire, but has said he will live a quiet life in seclusion. That’s humility.
Your view seems to be merely grounded in bigotry.
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.