Posted on 10/11/2001 9:39:48 AM PDT 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 |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
| Thread 158<;/a> | Thread 159 | Thread 160 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 161
I've freepmailed John Robinson to get his opinion.
Actually, ya'll show that someone says it goes back to the first century - says someone practiced it, then tell us that the person saying it is right on some things and wrong on others. And they are right on some things because 'no one attacked them for saying it.' Do we know that it was in circulation far enough back for someone knowledgeable to shoot it down? Books weren't a dime a dozen back then. One need only realize that a burial scroll in Egypt could cost anywhere from a month's wages to a year's. It's enough that the men aren't credible. If their word and testimony isn't inline with the bible, they're full of it.
Just because it may have happened in the first or second century doesn't mean it did. Just because someone says it was christians doing it, doesn't mean it's true. Just because it is credited to Origen, doesn't make it his work, nor does it make his statement credible - he could as easily be passing on what he heard. Etc.. Ya'll are a gullible bunch.
So, if you accept Origen as authoritative, are Boettner and Chick authoritative and correct? Just wondering. Ya'll seem to have tucked tail on that prior mention ROFL.
Because we are not perfect, we have a sinful nature and do things for our own benefit and interest. Notice that I used the word "could" not "always does" interpret correctly. It has the authority and power to do it correctly (with God's help), but we don't always follow God's will. But we have no guarantees that the RCC will interpret correctly either, and my belief (and I am not alone on this), the do interpret it incorrectly and for their own interests.
So we are left with an infallible book, but no way to know for sure who has the right interpretation, or if anybody even does have the right interpretation. And this is good?
That's chaos. That's confusion.
That's your opinion or point of view as a mere finite human being. God is not confused by all of it, he hears th prayers of millions at one time and holds the universe together. This is not a problem for Him, and if you rely on God, through his Word as the final authority, you will not be confused either.
Doctrinal chaos is pretty easy to show. It's not just an opinion of mine. Do I need to remind you of the Sola Scripturist here recently who believes in two gods? Tell me that soul would not benefit from having an authoritative teacher to straighten him out. Tell me that the idea of "just my Bible anf the 'Holy Spirit' is all I need as an authority" didn't fail this soul.
I thank God He left us with teachers to look to for help.
There's nothing wrong with teachers, and I use them and praise God for their wisdom. But my teachers rely on God's Word, and this does not violate sola Scriptura.
Let's discuss this some more. I hinted at it in a question a week or so ago. Let's assume you know nothing of Christ, but someone gives you the standard spiel and you accept Jesus as your personal Savior.
The person who brought you to Christ would show you where, in the Bible certain tuths were found. Would not the new Christian be having his perceptions of the Bible and Christ formed, colored by his teacher?
When this new Christian is then "grown up" and starts to study on his own, isn't he just going to internalize the interpretation given by his mentor?
SD
Amend that to HERESY has been around since the beginning, including Baptist style gnosticism.
No wonder I feel so darn tired.
SD
Oh, I see. Because they agree with the Catholic view of things on some matters, they are authoritative on those matters. When they disagree, they just missed the boat a little - doesn't damage their credibility in any way... LOL. So, to recap, If Catholics agree with something they said and they came from an early time, they're authoritative. If Catholics disagree with what they said, they didn't know what they were talking about. Doesn't really matter if they agree with the Apostles and the OT/NT writings as a whole.. Thank you for clearing that up.
Still leaves the Chick/Boettner Question. The Catholic church attacks a few things they say and doesn't attack the rest, are they authoritative on the rest? Or does the Vatican need to take a poll, and put it in writing before you can know that? ROFL.
Yeah, and to think that a virgin became pregnant without knowing a man and that she gave birth to the Incarnate God is too ludirous for words. To think that a person can have two natures is too ludicrous for words. To think that that divine person was killed and then resurrected is just too ludicrous for words. To think that God is a Trinity is just too ludicrous for words.
If we reject what seems to be too ludicrous for words, then we are all in a lot of trouble. To the unbeliever, pretty much everything we believe is ludicrous.
The Eucharist, and its true understanding which has been taught for 2000 years, is a major stumbling block, just as it was for the Jews in John 6 and just as it is for people like you who reject the historic understanding and teaching of Christianity and choose to follow a heresy that the Reformation[sic] revived and perpetuated.
the808bass, you ask about Tradition, the belief in a non-symbolic Eucharist is a part of that Tradition.
Disclaimer: Please note that my first paragraph is an example of an argument reductio ad absurdum and should in no way cause anyone to think that I deny the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Hypostatic Union, the Crucifixtion, the Resurrection, or the Trinity. I affirm those wonderous Truths with every fiber of my being.
Pray for John Paul II
Just for discussion purposes. You are displeased with us for "picking and choosing" which parts of Augustine, or any Church Father are authoritative. Yet I get the distinct impression that if we were to declare Augustine infallible you would not be happy with that either.
SD
Amend that to Hearsay has been around since the beginning, including catholic style claims.
Do I need to remind you that the only church that this person said he ever was part of was the RCC, and probably doesn't even understand the true meaning of "sola Scriptura". I don't think his problems can be laid at the feet of sola Scriptura. If your church failed him a proper understanding (as it appears), then maybe you should question you own church's failings.
What about the Koran. It claims to be inspired by God, too. How do you know that it is not?
If you believe that God is credible in his Word because of the people who wrote it down are credible is putting mans crediblity over God's. God said the Bible is his Word, that should be enough.
As far as the Koran or book of Mormons, Jesus did not quote from them as he did from the OT Scriptures according to the Bible. I don't know a whole lot about those books, but from what I understand there are also some contradictions in them and some contradictions to history. (that remark will draw flames won't it:)
I was not calling in to question God's Word, just that if it was left to people to write down on their own it would be suspect, but it is inspired by God. I also believe that God controlled the translation into the KJV, not inspired it, but made sure it was translated correctly.
I think you should leave the posts at 150. My poor Web TV takes forever loading and reloading as it is.
I have previewed this post 3 times. My HTML's are correct, so I don't know why the italicized text won't stop. It did that to me the other day too. Anyone else have that trouble.
Becky
He may not have grasped the finer points of the philosophy, but he sure lived it. That is the point. His authority was Scripture. It certainly was not the Catholic Church he was listening to now. Nope. He was listening to what the "Holy Spirit" tells him when he reads Scripture. Testing every idea against God's Perfect Word. And discovering two gods.
I don't think his problems can be laid at the feet of sola Scriptura. If your church failed him a proper understanding (as it appears), then maybe you should question you own church's failings.
My Church certainly failed to teach him. I don't doub that. When he rejected the authority of the Catholic Church and decided that all he needed was Scripture (and the "Holy Spirit") is when he went off the track. Thank you for pointing this out.
SD
No, I find it disgusting that you even bother with them. If they don't understand the Bible enough that they get a number of things wrong, Nothing they say is authoritative. Nothing. Men who try to rationalize scripture - not discerning the spiritual nor relying on the leading of God have no credibility whatever. You might as well ask Marylin Manson's opinion on scripture.
And the problem here is you may already have taken a Marylin Manson type opinion and don't know it because the people who make the statement arent wearing black robes and upside down crosses. They aren't as easy to spot because they don't have the Name Marylin Manson nor the tag that says "Satanist" stamped on a big placard hanging around their necks. One needs spiritual discernment - ya'll do this how?... Do you need to wait on the Catholic clergy to make that decision .. My Bible says I'm responsible for my walk, nobody else. Ya'll shuck it off willingly to someone else. Taking someone's word for face value just destroyed 0ver 6000 lives in NY not too long ago, plus collateral damage. Yet, you all would like us to just take everybody's word for it. Sorry, not that dumb.
Now I agree with this. But I think that God said so through the people he gave the scriptures to, not through the scriptures themselves. Do you not see the circular reasoning involved with a self-declared inspiration cannot prove anything?
I think you should leave the posts at 150. My poor Web TV takes forever loading and reloading as it is.
Are you using the "Old Style" to view the thread? Don't know how the Web TV works with the forum software, but you should be getting 20 replies per page, unless you changed your defaults. Do you see a link at the very bottom of the page that says [settings]?
I have previewed this post 3 times. My HTML's are correct, so I don't know why the italicized text won't stop. It did that to me the other day too. Anyone else have that trouble.
I don't see any italics in Opera. I'll take a look in IE.
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.