Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
As Jo already explained, 2 Tim. 3 merely states that a bishop of the Church will do well to round off his formation as a leader fo the faithful by studying the scripture. The notion that the scripture alone forms a Christian is nowhere to be seen in that statement.
The final passage in the Apocalypse refers most likely to the book of Apocalypse itself; even if read expansively to apply to the entire Christian Canon, it warns against altering the Canon once established by the Church, and who does it remind you of? It certainly does not teach anything about who and how is to interpret the Scripture.
Was Luther God or was he man? Whose power did his traditions increase? The patristic reading of the scripture is the exact opposite of empowering men. If I as a Catholic decide to teach anything out of the scripture because that is how I, Annalex, understand it, I will have to leave the Church and be damned for all eternity. Does it sound to you like I, a man, am empowering myself by sticking to the orthodox view of the scripture? If however, Rev. Manolex decides to teach something out of the scripture because it is how he understands it, all he needs to do is change the wording on the shingle at the most. He becomes another, 20,000th celebrated addition to the moldy edifice of Luther.
Yeah, and the Gospel is a story about one guy telling "I am" to another guy. By this logic there will be nothing left of the scripture, as most of it is parabolic. Why, do you think did the inspired Evangelist record it?
you don't seem to think that there is a requirement that only God's interpretation (other scripture) of the Bible is valid.
I think that only the Church's interpretation of the scripture is valid, as she is the bride of Christ formed by Him for that express purpose (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15; Luke 24:44-50; John 20:21, John 21:15-19), and guarded by Him from failure (Matthew 16:18). Got any scripture to the contrary?
Regards
Since you repeat the same things over and over, things I have already refuted which you don't address, I think I will agree with your closing...
Regards
The Eastern Fathers would disagree. We experience God's uncreated energies, the uncreated Light of Tabor, not God's Essence. We are in His presence all the time, jo. His nature is beyond our reach.
It seems to me there is a contradiction in that statement. To speak of "God Himself" is to acknowledge God as Person and to affirm God as hypostasis. Personal pronouns require a person. So I am not sure what you are trying to say.
You read John 3 in isolation from the fact that St. John the Baptist has already established a form of baptism that created a link between immersion in water and spiritual rebirth, which, of course, echoed the Flood and the passing through the parted sea in Exodus, -- all prefiguring rebirth through baptism. It also ignores Matthew 28:19, where baptism -- the word itself implies water, -- is proclaimed necessary for Christ's plan.
Moreover, your interpretation forces Jesus to mix up a second metaphore of physical birth to the total of three. I thought you were a believer in the perspicuity of the scripture. Consider how, according to you, Nicodemus refers to the physical birth, with great clarity, as birth from the womb in verse 4; Christ in 6 calls is birth of the flesh. But in 5, according to you, Christ abandons the "womb" terminology already offered by Nicodemus in favor of the very unclear "birth of the water", especially unclear in the context of both baptism of John and the scriptural context. In 6, however, Christ already speaks of "flesh". Why did He not stick to the "water" terminology in 6?
Lastly, you agree that the physical birth is "a given", -- we are not in the business of saving souls not yet made, and the unborn babies are not in view of the discussion. So why would Christ state the necessity of physical birth so forcefully, if that is what He is referring to in 5? Nicodemus asked Him about the second birth, not the first.
This is a good example how do-it-yourself scriptural exegesis produces disagreement over a core Christian belief.
Yes, I see you point, and don't disagree.
Each and every person of the Trinity consists of the totality of God's essence. Thus, if we contact the Son, we contact His essence - albeit, we do so in an incomprehensible manner. Each person is the reality, that divine substance, essence or nature, which alone is the beginning of all things, apart from which nothing else can be found. This reality is neither generated nor generated, nor proceeding, but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is generated, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds, so that there be distinction beteen the persons, but UNITY in nature. The Father gives His FULL SUBSTANCE to the Son. Thus, when the Son comes to us, He is not "merely" energy, but He ALSO is substance, the essence of God - since God is not separable nor does He consist of parts that are separable.
My brain is starting to hurt. It is much easier discussing the faulty position of Sola Fide!
Regards
You replied : It seems to me there is a contradiction in that statement. To speak of "God Himself" is to acknowledge God as Person and to affirm God as hypostasis. Personal pronouns require a person. So I am not sure what you are trying to say
My point is that the ENTIRE GOD comes to us, not just one person, one hypostasis. When Christ comes to abide within us, it is not just a hypostasis. God's essence is entirely within the Logos.
Regards
We just got through discussing the necessity of baptism in John 3, pretty fundamental concept. The identity of Christ is a matter of interpretation; the early Church spent several centuries combatting christological heresies, and we still have the Latter Day Saints belief system, and all read the same scripture. A child could read the scripture and know enough on his level of understanding, but if his parents are heretical, the child would most likely grow up a heretic.
heroic whistle-blowers [...] I thank God they were priests.
I am actually not sure if Calvin was ever a priest. In the case of Luther, I think that before his apostacy his contribution was positive as he posed important questions that needed answering, but that would not have set him apart from numerous Catholic reformers who remained faithful and produced the necessary reform at Trent. His rebellion, desecration of his vows and the mutilation of the Christian Canon did nothing good to anyone.
For the tenth time, Mary gave us Christ himself, which is the entirety of the Revelation, and you keep asking what books she wrote. The answer is, she wrote all of them.
I believe we are in agreement on this.
The only strength by which the saints are enabled to encounter with all oppositions and trials, is only by Jesus Christ, who is the captain of their salvation, being made perfect through sufferings; who hath engaged His faithfulness and strength to assist them in all their afflictions, and to uphold them in all their temptations, and to preserve them by His power to His everlasting kingdom.
John 16:33, 15:5; Phil. 4:11, Heb. 2:9,10; 2 Tim. 4:18.
This really has nothing to do with POTS or OSAS. Both of us would agree that a true believer will not lose their salvation. Will the Lord take home a believer if he is bringing dishonor to our Lord Jesus. Absolutely. I believe the Croatians found that out with communion.
It certainly contradicts the image of Christ as being the very opposite of a powerful temporal leader the Jews expected. But on the other hand, all the scripture really makes clear is that they were not royalty and not remarkably rich. The sacrifice of two doves suggest frugality and limited means, but not necessarily poverty, while the occupation of a carpenter must have been worth quite a bit in that low-tech age. I agree, it is entirely possible that the riches of Joachim are a bit fanciful.
It is commonly argued that the brothers of Jesus mentioned in Matt. 13:54-56 are actually Joseph's sons from a previous marriage
It tends to be the Orthodox preferred view, while us Catholics tend to think that they were cousins, and children of Mary Clopas.
I find it problematic that so many ideas taken AS "gospel" are based on unsupported works that the Church itself rejected as infallibly inspired.
The teaching of virginity of Mary is not based on the Protoevangelium, at least not primarily on it. The Protoevangelium is simply one coherent account that explains Luke 1:34 satisfactorily, but it is more likely that the Protoevangelium is in itself an imperfect summary of what the Church believed. As in the case of the inspired scripture, the Tradition preceded everything written. The source of all teaching, -- including all these things you hold entirely and incontrovertibly scriptural, -- is the Church herself.
Thank you for the clarification. As I understand the Orthodox approach to this question, it would be that where there is the Logos, there is also the Father and the Holy Spirit. And where there is the Holy Spirit, there is also the Father and the Logos. So in a manner of speaking, you always get Three for the price of One.
The words of the angel never make any reference to any time frame, so no, I do not have to assume that. Three months is a reasonable timeframe, which we know from the other scripture. Even if Mary took the words to mean that she will become pregnant sooner than the anticipated three months, her response still makes no sense, a natural response would be "Will the wedding date be moved forward? I can't wait to tell Joseph, etc."
Huh, HarleyD??? Slip of the old spelling checker. Of course it should be Corinthians.
Oh, I dunno. You have us. :O)
No, the sealing is still there as the sinner is lead to confession. Your confusion is natural for someone who does not believe in the free will, but for a Catholic mind the seal opens up particular graces given to a baptised Christian, confirmed Christian and ordained Christian, but it does not sheld them from temptation. Which brings me to this general question, why pray Our Father at all given the understanding of Perseverance that excludes the free will?
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.