The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

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

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[Invincibly Ignorant]

And your post 4451 sounds like you've been eating at Paul's table.

Only if Paul was serving beans.

[Havoc]

Here again we see that the Catholic Church simply can do nothing to please some people. You would scoff in amazement and run to tell the wife all about it if I had a definite answer. And yet when the Church leaves an area open to interpretation you scoff and mock that.

You're going overboard. Was trying to get you to actually think about it...

[eastsider]

So, either Paul should have popped some Beano before he wrote Romans, or a few of us should pop some before reading it.

[OLD REGGIE]

And you think wrongly. Catholics hold that Church teaching must be given precedent over any private interpretation of Scripture when there is a discrepancy between the two. This applies even to a pope's private interpretation of Scripture.

When does an interpretation of Scripture cease to be private?

Is it when the Pope and one Cardinal agree?, when 3 agree?, when 300 agree? When?

[Havoc]

You should have picked a different one. My copy of Scripture has God plucking Elijah up into Heaven.

Mary wasn't taken up into heaven bodily. This is myth. Elijah may have been. And God can take whomever he wishes in that fashion; but, Saying "CAN" and "DID" are two quite different things. And it isn't true just because you like it. There is no scripture supporting such a thing. It is purely an invention of Catholicism that the RCC has dogmatized. It's no different than saying now that Joseph was taken bodily into heaven - or that the entire first century apostleship was. There's no scriptural support and no factual support for it PerioD.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

So, either Paul should have popped some Beano before he wrote Romans, or a few of us should pop some before reading it.

No. No. What I meant was that Paul served nothing but the meat of the Word. Beans were just a side dish.

[SoothingDave]

Pretend for a moment that you are not perfect in your understanding. Pretend that we are not either. Pretend we both read the Bible, but come to different conclusions about a certain passage. To me the "clear" and "obvious" reading of the Bible says X. To you the "obvious" meaning of the bible is Y.

Is that not EXACTLY what we have here? The difference is, you appeal to the teachings of the RCC to back up your claims, and I don't.

I will listen to the teachings of the Church, you will not defer to any authority. If I stray into error because of my human limitations, I have someone to point my error out to me. If you stray into error, you are left to your own devices. Because the only authority you follow is whatever your mind makes of your reading of Scripture. If your mind gets confused, it will only lead you further away.

IMHO, scripture is it's own interpreter because, being God's Word, it is entirely self-consistent. In any area where it seems not to be, it is an error of perception and understanding on the part of the reader, not a fault or error in the scripture itself. If Scripture is not self-consistent, we're all in deep, deep trouble.

Scripture is consistent, that is, it does not contradict itself. When it is properly understood. Scripture is not its own interpreter. Scripture is words onpaper. As you said, you have to read them, perceive them, understand them. If a reader fails, it is not Scripture's fault. But with no authority except Scripture the same reader will perceive the same wrong idea from Scripture over and over, with no correcting influence.

SD

[SoothingDave]

You should have picked a different one. My copy of Scripture has God plucking Elijah up into Heaven.

Mary wasn't taken up into heaven bodily. This is myth. Elijah may have been. And God can take whomever he wishes in that fashion;

I wasn't arguing whether Mary was taken up, I was showing that the idea is Biblical, not like "something from a Stephen King" novel.

SD

[SoothingDave]

All Right! Enough with the flatulence theme already.

SD

[eastsider]

Yo, bro, he pharted first.

[Havoc]

Now Havoc missed the point, maybe you will see it. It is even more dangerous to go around telling folks that they are saved by "faith alone" when it can easily be misunderstood to mean that no obedience or change in life is necessary. If you wish to proscribe the uttering of things which can be misunderstood we would probably stay silent.

The point was not missed, it was denounced. One is saved by faith alone. Keeping it is quite a different matter.

[DouglasKC]

. Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 4:5, Titus 3:5, John 6:28-29. Your silence is speaking volumes:)

Okay Becky :). You and your husband are pulling the double team on me plus responding to everyone else means I fall behind. I saw that some had been addressed already by other posters. I'm not sure if you read other posts.

Eph 2:8 Because by grace you have salvation through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is given by God:
Eph 2:9 Not by works, so that no man may take glory to himself.

What's to argue on this one? Of course you have salvation by faith. The faith indeed isn't our faith, but given by God to us. Salvation through works? Of course not. I can live my life as a saint, helping other people 24 hours a day. But I'm not doing it for God, I'm doing it for myself. Is baptism a "work" that I want for myself, to glorify myself? No, God commands us to be baptized to be saved. It's not something we're doing (or at least should be doing) for our own purposes. The bible makes the point over and over again.

Romans 4:5...same answer.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Yes? It says again that works won't saves us, but by faith, baptism and recieving the holy ghost.

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

This is an interesting one. Thanks for pointing it out. The disciples are wondering what works THEY can do that are the works of God. What can THEY do. Well of course, they can do hardly nothing on their own to gain Gods salvation. Jesus replies that the only "works" they can do on their own is to have faith in Christ. In other words, turn your life over to God. God will then dwell in you and do or show you the things that are required for salvation.

[SoothingDave]

He started it. I'm ending it. I'll turn this browser right around...

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit."

Nothing added there.

Nothing added. Was something left out which might correct an error?

NAB FOOTNOTE
3 Born: see the note on John 1:13. From above: the Greek adverb anothen means both "from above" and "again." Jesus means "from above" (see John 3:31) but Nicodemus misunderstands it as "again." This misunderstanding serves as a springboard for further instruction.

[SoothingDave]

The point was not missed, it was denounced. One is saved by faith alone. Keeping it is quite a different matter.

And I denounce your use of the phrase "faith alone." It is too easily misunderstood. And I don't care how you define it. If you don't like it, tough.

(Do you get it yet? Anybody?)

SD

[the808bass]

God is an uncaused cause.

I have no experience (experiential experience anyways if that makes any sense) with an uncaused cause. Every cause I see has a prior cause. It would seem logical that a cause must have a prior cause. However, can there be an infinite regression of causes? That might be as illogical as an uncaused cause (more, probably).

[DouglasKC]

See post 4410...

[eastsider]

Fine, I'll shut up. But don't come crying to me when you have to sleep in one of Paul's tents.

[SoothingDave]

"Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit."

NAB FOOTNOTE
3 Born: see the note on John 1:13. From above: the Greek adverb anothen means both "from above" and "again." Jesus means "from above" (see John 3:31) but Nicodemus misunderstands it as "again." This misunderstanding serves as a springboard for further instruction.

OK Reggie. The correct phrase and meaning is "born from above." I have no problem with this. It doesn't change a thing about our interpretation here, unfortunately. It isn't a "key" which we are missing. Jesus says we must be born from above. Fine. When we are baptised the Holy Spirit comes upon us from above. No problem.

Now, there is a huge problem with your interpretation of being born "of water" meaning natural birth, and "the spirit" meaning "Accepting Jesus as your Savior." Jesus says both are necessary. Both being regular birth and being "saved."

This means that Jesus is saying that the unborn, slaughtered in the womb, can not enter the kingdom of God. Remind me not to use this phrase when comforting a woman who miscarries.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Becky, I'm getting dizzy. Why can't "Baptism now saves us" mean that Baptism now saves us? That's surely the plain reading of the text, like Jesus' "brothers" is the plain reading.

Such as Vulgate Psalm 69:

8 I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother's sons;