Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Kind of goes along with their idea of God -- to be saved from and not saved by.
Which of course is your own personal interpretation of 2 Pet 1:20.
From Albert Barnes' Commenatary:
Is of any private interpretation - The expression here used (ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως idias epiluseōs) has given rise to as great a diversity of interpretation, and to as much discussion, as perhaps any phrase in the New Testament; and to the present time there is no general agreement among expositors as to its meaning....
10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 12 For which cause I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth. 13 But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. 14 Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. 15 And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things.In this larger context is is even clearer that Peter traces the apostolic succession directly from Christ and endeavors to ensure that the Church continues through the ages, as she has. His warning against private interpretations is aimed at preserving the Word against the will of man, which will masquerade as a prophet and incite a riot against the Church. His letter is a clear indictment of the Reformation.16 For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. 17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
Chapter 2
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.
No it is not; I merely explained the teaching of the Apostolic Church.
It is still your own personal interpretation of the scripture. Your decision to follow the Roman Church's teachings without question is based upon your own personal interpretation of the scriptures that the Roman Church uses to justify their dogma.
So regardless of how you interpret it, YOU interpret it. It is YOUR interpretation. It may coincide with the teachings of the present Roman Church, but when it comes down to brass tacks it is your interpretation.
I find nothing in 1 Pet 1:20 which prohibits people from coming to an independent conclusion on the meaning of scriptural passages, but then that is my interpretation.
Where would I find the "official" Roman Church position on the interpretation of 1 Pet 1:20? And what procedure did the Roman Church authorities use in coming to their own personal interpretations of the passage?
2) The Eucharist ("You will see the Levites (deacons) bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373))
3) Mary, Queen of Heaven (It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near him who granted you all graces, for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God and Master who was born of you. For this reason, you are called full of grace. Remember us, most holy Virgin, and bestow on us gifts from the riches of your graces, Virgin full of graces.)
How do we know which of Athanasius’ points are in error if any? I can take his first statement that the Scripture is all sufficient for us and validate the Eucharist and Mary, Queen of Heaven from the first premise. While there may be a limited case made for the Eucharist from scripture there is certainly no place in scripture for Mary being the Queen of Heaven. Consequently it isn’t difficult to reject Athanasius 2nd and 3rd premise based upon his belief that we will know heretical doctrine by the word of God.
OTOH, you will have an impossible task of denying Athanasius’ view on the Divine word and supplementing them with traditions of the Church. He doesn’t say that. Also to validate the Eucharist or Mary, Queen of Heaven with no scriptural support for the latter goes against what Athanasius states.
It will be no doubt at all because it was spelled with a small "c"; that means it refers to the body of Christ (Eph 1)
I see a remarkable parallel between the circumstances Paul faced in the transition era to the new covenant; & those Luther & other reformers faced at that transitional period in history that has been marked by historians as the beginning of the reformation.
Well, Athanasius would argue that #2 and #3 are in scripture. As would the Orthodox, Catholics, and even Martin Luther.
"And which one of us is any better than him?"
No one, nor is he any better than the rest of us. We are all sinners saved by grace.
"The Peraclete in John 14-15 is promised to the apostles only; see specifically John 15 where the narrow circle of the apostles is explicitly drawn:
26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. 27 And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning"
I'm sure those extra people at Pentecost would be surprized to find out that the Holy Spirit fell only on the eleven disciples and not on the brothers of Jesus, the mother of Jesus or the other 100 or so believers who were gathered in the upper room.
I know the Catholic position intuitively but cannot provide a catechetical quote off the top of my head. It seems to me that the plain reading ot 1 Peter agrees with the Church. If you insist that I first interpret it personally and then find that it matches the Catholic authoritative posuition, I won't argue with you.
I won't argue for or against this. The scripture says in John 15 that the Paraclete is to be sent to those who were with Christ from the beginning, and that means the Eleven. The scene in the Upper Room indeed mentions the "disciples" but not specifically the apostles, so perhaps all who were present received the Holy Ghost as well. What should not be in dispute though is that Christ breathed the Holy Ghost to a select group of people, who ipso facto became bishops of the Church and in due course consecrated other bishops. This college of bishops is what collectively guides and feeds the sheep since then, and is responsible, among other things, for the interpretation of the scripture for the purposes of teaching.
When you show me where Mary is referred to in scripture as the "Queen of Heaven" then I will be interested. Luther, as Catholics are eager to point out, was wrong on some of the issues he brought over. This was one of them. Contrary to popular belief Mary is not our maternal mediator or co-redeemer which is not what Luther believed. None of this is in scripture. It's made up.
BTW-Luther disagreed with you on the Eucharist (#2).
If my analysis is correct, then the end is far sooner than we really think.
I mean 2 Peter 1-2, that I excerpted in 223
You'll be hard press to find the "official" RC position on the interpretation of many verses in scripture. I know. I've tried. They have position papers loosely fitted to some verses but don't look for Pope Leo's X Systematic Theology on the Bible.
"What should not be in dispute though is that Christ breathed the Holy Ghost to a select group of people, who ipso facto became bishops of the Church and in due course consecrated other bishops"
Then by your interpretation, Paul was not part of the select group so he could not have consecrated other bishops like Timothy, Titus and nowhere do we find that Jesus' brothers James and Jude were consecrated by any of the Apostles. Matthias, who was numbered among the Apostles after the ascension, although an Apostle, could not consecrate anyone.
Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus set out the qualifications for bishop but no where mentions that the applicant must pass the inspection of an apostle or another bishop. In fact the only time bishop is mentioned with the exception of the reference to Jesus in 1 Peter, is in the letters to Timothy and Titus and then it applies to the pastor of a church, a family man. No where in the scriptures are the Apostles called bishops nor do you find them consecrating bishops. They appoint deacons but no bishops.
Happy new year Harley.
Saint Athanasius wrote in the year 373:
It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near Him Who granted you all graces, for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God Master Who was born of you. For this reason you are called 'full of Grace'..."
Where did he get that? How did Saint Ambrose, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, Saint Ephraem, St. Gregory of Nazianzen and the rest get similar ideas? By reading scripture. (You know the drill... Rev. 12:1, 1 Kings 2:19–20, 2 Kings 24:12, etc.) I assume you have read the writings of these saints. And if you don't agree with them that it's in there then I'm not going to convince you tonight either. But where did they get the idea?
"BTW-Luther disagreed with you on the Eucharist (#2)."
He disagreed on how it was explained but he maintained that Christ is truly present in the bread (Body) and wine (Blood) of the Eucharist.
By the way, I meant to thank you for that "abortion and the early church" article you posted today. Outstanding.
How soon we get diverted from the essence of BOW.
Either a laying of hands or annointing refers to consecration, and both are mentioned in the Acts and some epistles. Indeed the scripture does not mention, at least to my memory, consecration of every apostle, but it does not mean it did not happen.
It is also true that the disctinctions between bishops, priest and deacons were formed a generation or two later. The Greek "presbyteroi" most widely used in the New Testament is most naturally translated as priests, but the Protestant translations prefer the jejune "elders", another reason not to read them.
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.