Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Oh, that's OK. There certainly are some differences between, at least, the three that I mentioned. I just didn't know if you meant there were great differences within any one of the three I mentioned. In any event, depending on what scale one uses, I'm not aware (meaning I'm not fully versed on this :) there are really earth shattering differences among all "Baptists". It's funny, 15 years ago, when I first started attending my current (and first) church, it took me several months to even know that it was a SB church. All the name says is "Baptist". :)
You Catholics better get your story straight. I would refer you here to the following post where I'm being told otherwise.
You are not being told otherwise, idiot.
Christ converts who He wishes to convert. Pray that you are among them.
*****You are not being told otherwise, idiot.*****
Nice fruits of the Spirit.
Gods work in us is a mark of our faith and salvation. But even the heathen does "good works" so if one looks to his works as PROOF of his salvation he might be very surprised on judgment day when Christ says "I never knew you"
Yes, works are a mark of Christ's presence. However, Christ clearly points out that there is a difference between works as done externally (for whatever selfish motives) and works done out of internal love of God.
"Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets" (Mat 6:1-2)
This is key in the Gospels:
"That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Mat 5:20).
Note this is preceded by the Beatitudes, which reward particular behavior with Heaven, then followed by how we can EXCEED the commands of the Law by loving our neighbor -
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery, But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt 5:27-28).
We are to EXCEED the written code - to LOVE with our hearts!
Consider the Rich Young Man, Matt 19:16b-21:
"what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" So He said to him,....but if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."
The parallel in Mark 10:21 says "Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him (not ridiculed him), and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven..."
Here, Jesus is pointing out another requirement to enter life - the obedience of the commandments. The obedience to the Law as representing the desire of one's heart towards God and neighbor IS THE ISSUE, not faith. The question Jesus presents is "have you combined your faith and works sufficiently"?
A similar discussion of the Law is found in Mark 12:28-34. A scribe approaches Jesus (not trying to trap Him, like the other Pharisees). What does Jesus tell the scribe?
"Which is the first commandment of all? (asked the scribe. After Jesus response to love God and others, the scribe says...) Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.
Note, in either case, Jesus did not condemn the young man or the scribe who obeyed the commandments. They were unlike the hypocritical Pharisees that Jesus condemns in Matthew 5-7.
Jesus throughout the Gospels tells us that our actions of love are the basis of our judgment to life or eternal damnation...He is looking for an obedience to God that exceeds the hypocritical Pharisees who EXTERNALLY obey the Commandments for their own selfish reasons - for human praise. God is looking for a personal striving of one trying to please the Lord with all of his actions and thoughts. THIS man is righteous, in God's eyes. As Paul says:
"he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." Romans 2:29
James continues this idea - we MUST add works of love to our faith...
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" James 2:14-16
Does this differ at all from Christ's teachings, or this one from Paul: "though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" 1 Cor 13:2
We have already discussed WHERE these works come from - God. He is the source of both our faith and our love. But faith is not a conveyor belt that automatically brings love. Paul's last verse points that out. Jesus points that out. James points that out. We CAN have fear of God, faith in Him, while SIMULTANEOUSLY disregarding our neighbor! Does anyone in the Scriptures tell us that this faith will save? NO! Unless we love from the heart, obeying God's commandment to love, all the faith in the world makes me nothing
Thus, faith alone DOES NOT save.
Regards
As for using the Bible that the Apostles and Christ used, yes, the Massoretic/TR are the preserved words that was eventually translated into the English of the 1611 AV.
I would like to discuss whether the Church believed in one or two Rules of Faith during its earliest existence and show that removing Tradition is inconsistent with that pattern.
First, what is Tradition? It is NOT unwritten teachings, only! It is ANY teaching that is NOT written in the Scriptures. Thus, Revelation from God has been given to us THROUGH the Apostles. We have this in two forms: Scripture, and everything else...This "everything else" is absolutely important, as it includes Liturgy (HOW we worship God), daily devotions and practices (HOW we act as Christians), and the INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture (found in creeds, councils, and writings of the later generations of Christians). The latter is VERY important, and the Church recognized that God gave us something called Apostolic Succession to guard the Teachings given by Christ:
"And He (Christ) Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" Ephesians 4: 11-13
THIS is the second rule of faith - the so-called Magesterium, the valid interpreters of Scriptures and other given teachings. The ancient Church constantly appealed to the continued succession of Bishops, to their common interpretation of Scriptures, to their unity and consent in matters of faith, and to their abhorence of novelty in doctrine. Ecclesiastical authority is the rule. On THIS depends the interpretation of Scriptures - even their FORMATION AND EXISTENCE. Left to themselves, the Scriptures cannot quicken. The Scriptures ARE because the Church APPROVED of them and vouched for them that they indeed contained Divine Revelation.
This authority does not mean that the Church is superior to Scriptures! It simply means that the Church alone has the right to tell us what is Scripture, and what is not Scripture, and what is true and infallible interpretation (since it is guided by the Spirit of Truth). Only AFTER they are approved and interpreted by the Church do the Scriptures become a Rule and Object of Faith.
Origen (mid 200's) writes: "Whenever they - the heretics - bring before us the Scriptures, every Christian approves and believes, they seem to say 'behold the words of truth in your homes' (Mat 24:26), but we must not believe them, NOR DO AWAY WITH THE FIRST AND ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, nor believe otherwise than what has been handed over by succession to the Church of God" (Origen, Commentaries on Matthew)
Clement the Roman (mid 200's) writes :"I see that some clever men find in what they read many likelihoods; and yet, it must be diligently observed that in reading the law of God, we must not read it according to the intelligence of our own mind. For there are many words in Divine Scriptures which can be taken in whatsoever sense which every one of us may like or presume to give them. THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE...hence, one must learn the knowledge of Scriptures from him who acquired it from the ancients, according to the truth delivered to them" (Clement the Roman, Book of Recognitions)
Scripture is interpreted according to received teachings - if we consider that Christianity is a revealed religion from God, can it be any other way?
Tertullian (200 AD) writes "no one should even use the Scriptures without belonging to the Catholic Church, because she is the only one who knows how to give proper interpretation of them. Therefore, we should not have recourse to the Scriptures, nor dispute about them....For where the true Christian discipline and docrine are shown to be, there will also be the truth of Scriptures, and of their interpretation, and of all Christian tradition" (Tertullian, Prescriptions)
Where is the Doctrine of Faith to be found? Tertullian again answers "In the succession of the Bishops".(Prescriptions). St. Irenaeus, living before Tertullian, warns us solemnly: "Where the charisms of the Lord are, there also we must learn the truth, because it is through them that the Apostolic Succession is found in the Church. They (the priests) watch our Faith and explain to us the Scriptures WITHOUT ERROR." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies).
The first Christians, thus, placed the authority of the Church over the Scriptures, not as if the Chruch was superior to God's Word written, but as giving it to explain correctly and interpret "without error".
And finally, St. Vincent of Lerins adds: "because not all accept Sacred Scripture in the same sense, on account of their loftiness; but this one and that give the sayings of Scripture so many different significations that there are almost as many minds as there are men (something very close to what Luther would say 1000 years later)... Consequently, it is absolutely necessary that on account of so many errors, the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation must be drawn according to the direction of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense" (St. Vincent, Commonit.)
To summarize, the earliest writers of Christianity respected and valued Tradition as the Word of God. They based the two great columns of truth upon Scripture and Tradition. Man owes the same obligation to believe these infallible witnesses, the Apostles, who exhibit, keep and witness Revelation - written or unwritten (2 Thes 2:14). It depended on God alone to choose the way and manner of promulgating Revelation. If the Church recognized the need for both Tradition and Scripture to know this Revelation, we believe we are obedient to Him by continuing to follow the way He established His teachings to us - through the Church's Scriptures and Traditions validly passed down to us today.
My question is "Considering the earliest Christians wrote about the necessity of Tradition to interpret Scriptures, why has Tradition of late been discarded, when it was considered part of God's Word to us through His apostles?"
Regards
You, too, might wish to pray for an ability to understand what you are reading which comes from conversion (Acts 8:30).
Calling someone an idiot comes from the Bible?
Now, now. You can be sued these days for such comments. ;O)
***You can be sued these days for such comments.***
Indeed:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1560128/posts
It's time someone sues Marlowe
Amen, ftd.
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" -- Psalm 11:3
An excellent site noting the accurate history of the word of God and the inspired truth of the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) is found here:
"...Why did the early churches of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text? The answer is because:
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text. Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point. Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers. Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief. Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, his miracles, his bodily resurrection and literal return. Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind."Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
Who is it that decides the meaning and interpretation of scripture for Catholics?
Could you define grace and mercy for me?
For Cartholics and for all Christians, -- the Chair of St. Peter.
But I [Jesus Christ] have prayed for thee [Simon Peter], that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.(Luke 22:32)
The inaccuracies, obfuscations, and outright blunders of King James, noted here by me and Kosta, are as compared to Textus Receptus.
I think that is what harley meant when he said your church tells you what to think. BTW I do not think many non Catholics would let the magistrum tell them the interpretation for Scripture
See 967, 984, 1194. I should add that 967 are valid observations by Cronos, but the translations as offered by King James are permissible as far as I can tell. Both 967 and 984 equally apply to Douay-Rheims.
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.