Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
The Tradition of Cardinals covering up the scandal of child abuse
or
the Word of G-d to those who sanction perversion.
Chuck, I hope you're kidding. You are misrepresenting Holy Tradition. Covering up child abuse may have become a sort of perverted "tradition" in some places, but it is not Capital T "Tradition."
I suspect you know this, or know better, anyway. Your disaproval of this scandal is duly noted.
Your attempt to score points by smearing the Faith is likewise noted.
SD
When were the four Gospels received by the Church written? (Dates again).
I would observe that your opinion that the books of Holy Scripture discarded by the protestants do not agree with the rest of Holy Scripture was not shared by any Christians prior to the 16th century, though St. Jerome who provided the Latins with their standard translation of the Scriptures held the opinion that they were less valuable than the rest of the Old Testament. St. Jerome and you are evidently unaware of the history of the Jewish Canon--how it was trimmed by Christ-denying rabbis at the Council of Jaminia in 90 A.D. Another reason to consider tradition: the content of the canon of Holy Scripture, which books are in or out is a matter of tradition. Your tradition is newer (among Christians) and less generally accepted by Christians than mine, and your tradition (as regards the Old Testament) has roots in the denial of the Gospel.
I'll bite on your can of worms. First, please explain what you mean by "take."
In order to back into a spot, I'd have to enter the parking lot going the wrong direction. Park farther away? I have a 3 month old and a 1 1/2 year old ... I'd prefer a shorter walk lugging them and their belongings.
Your copy of Scripture is missing the Resurrection?
Mine clearly shows that after Jesus dies and His Blood poured out from His Body, that He rose again.
Alleluia!
Or are you postulating that Jesus' body is still broken and ex-sanguinated?
SD
Let's hope so.
Fine by me. Of course it lacks the je ne sais quoi of "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
SD
Angled spaces? That sucks.
Park farther away? I have a 3 month old and a 1 1/2 year old ... I'd prefer a shorter walk lugging them and their belongings.
I figured I might get this response. Then your only alternative is to buy a really beat up car and just back up without looking. They'll move out of the way. ;-)
SD
I have understood that like the strong Greek anamnesis, the 'rememberance' of the orginal Passover each Pesach is understood as an actual participation in the original.
So the anamnesis of Christ in the Eucharist which He told us is His Body and His Blood is an actual participation, not simply a recalling to mind.
I took it to mean "be valid." Neither of us believs that just any guy on the street can perform a Mass and actually create the Real Presence.
So this is the question of why we feel that a man must be ordained to do this.
SD
You made a comment. I made a comment. Howdy fellow blusterer. The word beats your argument senseless - I don't mind quoting it anytime you make the point; but being a veteran of the argument, if you can make a generic comment, so too can I.
It's the New Math
SD
On the occasions that the wife and I go at separate times, I drive my 1988 Honda Accord. It has almost 230,000 miles on it, a dent on the nose from a 2x4 I met on the highway back in '96, a dent from an unknown source on the left rear passenger door, and the remnants of what used to be paint on the hood and roof. I can easily get out of my parking spot on those occasions. ;o)
They had eyes to see and tongues to taste, and they believed Jesus and did eat what looked, felt and tasted like bread and wine, not flesh and blood. They also had understanding as to what He meant even though others didn't understand and were repulsed. Jesus obviously didn't cut off a finger and give it to them nor did He magically or supernaturally change the bread to his flesh. That's reading something into Scripture that simply isn't there. Jesus did turn water into wine that was wine and tasted like fine wine. To believe and teach that Jesus, while standing there in the flesh, offered to them His body and His blood in reality is a strain to our God-given intelligence. I guess that makes me anathama to the RCC.
Jesus is the Lamb of God. This also is not a metaphor. Did John "metaphorically" see a Lamb in Heaven "standing there as if it had been slain"?
John may or may not have seen a Lamb in Heaven, but John the Baptist saw Jesus in the flesh and referred to Him as the Lamb of God. That's clearly a metaphor.
You don't use a KJV?
"Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. "
You should reference your Bible quotes as a help. This quote from Matthew 26:27,28 and the one in Mark 14:24 are somewhat similar. Both quote Christ as saying "this is my blood of the new testament." Luke 22:20 phrases it as "the new testament in my blood." 1Cor. 11:25 is similar to Luke and says, "This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." The "it" was added by the translators, but it still does not state here nor in the Gospels that it is His blood, but that "the cup" is "the new testament in my blood," or "my blood of the new testament."
This does not diminish the effect of Christ's precious blood shed for us and our sins. Heb. 9:22 says "without shedding of blood is no remission." Remission here is the same Greek word translated as forgiveness. Eph. 1:7 says "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." That's the issue not the drinking of blood and eating of flesh.
Incidentally, but not insignificantly, the Matthew and the Mark passages indicate this new testament in Christ's blood is "for many." Isa. 53:8 sheds light on the "many" by stating that Christ died for the "transgressions of my people." Of course that's Israel, hence the many, not all. Christ even said in Mt. 20:28 that He came to "give his life a ransom for many." We don't learn He gave His life for all until Paul's writings, cf. 1Tim. 2:4.
As has already been stated (I think). The prohibition of drinking blood was precisely because the blood contained the life of the animal. Interesting that Christ said that if you don't drink His blood "you have no life within you"? Kinda gives "receiving Christ" new meaning huh?
You stopped your quote, John 6:53, early and thus missed the context. John 6:63 says, "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." Also read verse 46. So it's God's Word that gives life, not drinking wine and pretending it's blood. The entire 6th chapter is about eating the Passover and its broader meaning in Christ fulfilling or being the Passover sacrifice. Hence the focus on food and drink since that was the topic of the day. Is this much different that Christ's comments regarding "living water" to the woman at the well in John 4:13,14?
If that's how you received Christ, then I don't envy your future. We receive Christ by a simple belief in the gospel message that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture, and that he was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the scripture. That's 1Cor. 15:3,4, but read verses 1-4 for context.
Now we have come here this evening to discuss sola Scriptura. Well, what does that mean? Well, first, I'd like to start with the negatives, what it doesn't mean, because I've discovered there's a lot of confusion about what it does mean. Let me tell you some of the things it doesn't mean. First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. It is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. In John 21:25 we read that if everything that Jesus said or did had been recorded that the world itself would not be large enough to contain the books that would be written, but it does not have to be exhaustive, either, to be the rule of faith for the Church. We don't need to know the color of Matthew's eyes. We don't need to know the menu of each of the apostolic meals of the Lord Jesus by the Sea of Galilee to have a sufficient rule of faith for the Church. Curiosity that goes beyond what God has revealed is not godly.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach. I Timothy 3:15 describes the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. And what is the truth? The truth, of course, is Jesus Christ. And how do we know Jesus Christ? We know Jesus Christ from his Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to believe in the truth, calls men to believe in Jesus Christ. But the Church does not add revelation or rule over the Scriptures. The Church, being the Bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in the God-breathed Scriptures.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word was, at one time, spoken. Apostolic teaching was authoritative in and of itself, yet the Apostles proved their message from Scripture. You'll note, for example, Paul's example, in Acts 17:2 or Apollos in Acts 18:28 demonstrating the consistency that existed between the message that they preached and the Old Testament Scriptures. And remember, also, that John commended those in Ephesus in Revelation 2:2 for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, and how would they have done that, if not by the Scriptures?
And finally, number four, it is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church. It is in no way a denial that the Holy Spirit is absolutely, positively necessary for anyone to have a full understanding of the Scriptures because they need to be spiritually discerned.
What then, is sola Scriptura?
Well, the doctrine of sola Scriptura simply states that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith, for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word and is constantly reformed thereby.
Now I want you to recognize that I am emphasizing that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is based upon the inspiration of Scripture. Now that term, inspiration, that you will find, for example, in II Timothy 3:16, is really not the best way of rendering the term. The Greek term, theopneustos, is best rendered as "God-breathed." And in fact, in the New International Version, that is how it is rendered. In II Timothy 3:16 we read that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work." We learn from this that Scripture's authority is God's authority. You don't have Scriptural authority over here then God's authority over here. You don't have different authorities in the Church. The authority of the Church is one: God's authority. And when God speaks in Scripture that carries His authority.
Notice, for example, from the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 22 when he is talking with the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, he says, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God, for in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels in Heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead have you not read what God spoke to you, saying 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.'" Please notice that from the Lord Jesus' perspective that which was found in Scripture was God speaking and he held those men responsible for what God had said to them, even though what was spoken had been written a thousand years earlier. Scripture is God speaking to man. It is theopneustos. God-breathed.
Note as well Peter's words in II Peter 1:20-21, "Knowing this first of all that no Scriptural prophecy ever came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For no prophecy ever was born by the will of man. Rather, while being carried along by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God." That is why the Scriptures can function as a rule of faith for the Church, because they are God-breathed. What God says is the final authority for the Church.
The great reformer of Geneva, John Calvin, said concerning this, "This, then, is the difference. Our opponents (speaking of the Roman Catholic Church) locate the authority of the Church outside God's Word, that is, outside of Scripture and Scripture alone. But we insist that it be attached to the Word and to not allow it to be separated from it. And what wonder if Christ's bride and pupil be subject to her spouse and teacher so that she pays constant and careful attention to His words. For this is the arrangement of a well-governed house. The wife obeys the husband's authority. This is the plan of a well-ordered school, that there the teaching of the schoolmaster alone should be heard. For this reason the Church should not be wise of itself, should not devise anything of itself but should set the limit of its own wisdom where Christ has made an end of speaking. In this way the Church will distrust all the devisings of its own reason. But in those things where it rests upon God's Word the Church will not waiver with any distrust or doubting but will repose in great assurance and firm constancy." Not the "orthodox" definition.
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.