Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself, through the Holy Spirit. It is no wonder that you see these as individual interpretations because the Bible interpreting itself so strongly disagrees with Catholic interpretation. In addition, your impersonal view of the Holy Spirit says that He does not lead His children personally in scripture, He only leads a small handful of very powerful men.
And yes, Protestant views can be different. The Spirit reveals only the truth and men appropriate it to varying degrees. Sanctification improves the correctness of the apprehension of the Spirit's revelations. Christians grow in their faiths and are able to accept higher understandings.
I think the passage in 2 Tim. means that all scripture, what is now called the OT and NT, is God's inspired word, down to the last jot and tittle. It is perfect and inerrant. Within only its pages are contained absolutely everything that any Christian could possibly need to know to be exactly the kind of Christian God wishes us to be. Nothing else is necessary for Christians to be completely and utterly equipped and complete.
"I don't know if any of you ever raised sheep. No, I did not either..."
Yes, I can tell. Of course, perhaps the sheep business was different in the Near East than it is out here in the Wild West, with our rather large sheep ranches. :-)
Seriously, I've often wondered just whence the evidence comes for these authoritative treatises on sheep-raising that I've read or heard sermonized by urban clergy over the years...
And don't *even* get me started about the gross inaccuracies of Brokeback Mountain...
Sorry, I was just having an agrarian moment...
I agree with you, but I don't think it has the salvational importance that I am seeing from the other sides. Even including the exceptions we have discussed, under normal circumstances, I can't see someone who is a Christian in every other way going to hell for only wanting of Baptism. I know you have said that every true believer will want to get Baptized if he has not already been, and I just don't know one way or the other. I can't think of any examples of Jesus commanding a ritual for the purpose of salvation. To me, He focuses only on belief.
Clearly, for one to wish to repent one must have faith. So faith is independent of Baptism. You do not get baptized because you have faith; you get baptized because Christ commands it.
I substantially agree here as well, except that I would say that we DO get Baptized because we have faith. A regenerated heart wants to love and obey. Baptism is in obedience. You say that you get Baptized because Christ commands it, but who cares about following Christ's commands who is without faith? No one. Faith comes first and is essential to following Christ's commands.
As to whether the infant has a "dormant" faith or not is a ridiculous question. We all have "dormant" faith as God inscribed His laws in our hearts.
I suppose I will continue to ask ridiculous questions and you will continue to misread my posts. :) I wasn't talking about from birth.
The God Parents, who must be Orthodox, make a solemn promise that they will raise the child in Orthodox Faith. The acknowledgment of faith will be left up to the child when he or she grows up.
Does this mean that you don't recognize the Baptisms of Protestants and Catholics? Our equivalent to your infant Baptism is a "baby dedication". But in that ceremony, no pledge is made to raise a child as a Baptist, only as a Christian.
Likewise, the children are schooled in faith, first by being exposed to praxis and then to participate in it as they mature, so they may learn how to live in faith.
That's good. Our Sunday Schools start at age 3, and continue for life.
I follow the Bible's interpretation of itself. The Holy Spirit leads in His own way for every Christian, in His own time. Further truths are revealed as He sees fit. BTW, is every jot and tittle of the Bible settled in interpretation in your Church? I doubt it. What do you do for interpretation when the Church has not ruled on an issue? Since the Holy Spirit does not speak to you as a layman, according to your beliefs, you must be left hung out to dry on all of those issues.
You keep ignoring the fact that (1) the bible was not available for people to study for at least 300 years after the Lord departed from earth.
I'm not ignoring it, I have said before that I think that the Apostles taught correctly. After that, it's anyone's guess. I'm sure that many were correct on many things, but error appeared, and then grew, until finally God had had enough and decided to start the Reformation movement.
(3) The only people who knew anything about the faith were church fathers, bishops, priests and deacons who were schooled in the faith ...
None of this saves any of them from potential corruption. Men are fallible.
(4) Even if the Bible were available, the majority (90% or more) of the population was illiterate.
That's what teaching FROM the Bible (or from the teachings of the Bible) is for. We support that. Baptists spend tens of millions of dollars a year sending missionaries to countries where the Bible hasn't even been translated in their language yet, or is otherwise illegal for a person to own. The teachings go forward, and we believe it is God's will. Sola Scriptura includes oral teaching.
(5) The Bible in the west was written in Latin whereas the majority of the people did not speak that language.
Don't blame the Protestants for that! :) In the West, there was a concerted effort to keep the Bible inaccessible to the layman, supposedly for his own good. I don't buy it for a second.
Yes, I think you are right. My view is that God has chosen His elect, and that He will "get them" :) by whatever means He chooses, but it is guaranteed to happen.
+Symeon the New Theologian, as I have quoted before but perhaps now you can understand it a bit better, taught: ...
Thank you for both quotes. I do think I see what he is talking about much more now. I suppose I would see this as being sanctification, in my view an automatic for believers. I see salvation as being a beginning in this process, and fully agree that this process is necessary to enter heaven.
I think I see the relationship between purification of the heart and penetration by fire. I think the former has to do with man's willingness to come to God (in repentance). The latter is the result, and they fuel each other. The greater the former the greater the latter, and this keeps increasing until the ultimate goal of theosis is reached.
Every book in the NT does not specifically call itself God-breathed. But why would they ever need to? Neither did the individual books of the OT. Yet, they were certainly all covered by one passage in the NT. I am just saying that the 2 Tim. passage also covers the NT because God has also ordained it to be scripture.
Do you really think that the Bible fell out of the sky already put together and "God-breathed", verified by an angel in the sky?
I don't know what this means. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. It did not require man to legitimate it of himself. For man's benefit, God made it "official" through man, although He did not need to for it to have been His Holy word. Men deserve zero credit for making good or wise decisions here.
FK, the last sentence is Mohammadenism. You should try to avoid that! :)
I agree that is something to be avoided, but I'm not sure how it applies to what I said. I am also particularly confused about the multiple resistance I have gotten about my brazen assertion that the New Testament is scripture. :)
Perhaps this was a bit strong but not entirely inaccurate. The Church prohibited owning or distributing a bible without the Church's permission and you were not allow to make any interpretation contrary to the Church on fear of excommunication.
And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,—thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,—print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran
As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors.
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent The Fourth Session
The Council of Trent ABSOLUTELY DID NOT prevent anyone from owning or reading a Bible. All Trent fathers demanded was that the Bible produced be in accordance with textual norms established by long standing tradition and study of the Church, have notes, and be examined by the local ordinary before mass production. This is why the imprimatur became a necessary thing in Catholic Bibles until the present day.
That's a very good question. I maintain there were always a core set of people in the western church that understood the concept of unmerited grace. Some of our Orthodox and Catholic friends would say this isn't so, that Luther invented the whole thing. However the Reformation wasn't isolated to Germany but was happening in Eastern Europe (Tynsdale), England (Wycliff), Switzerland (Ziggy???), and Spain (Queen Isabella)-yes her too. It just took someone (in this case Luther) to finally say, "Enough" to the Church to start the ball rolling.
But let's assume for a moment that no one understood the grace of God. I would refer back to King Josiah when Judah found the writings sealed in a room within the temple during renovations. The scriptures tells us that when the books were opened and read, the people wept.
How did Judah know it was really God's writings? They hadn't heard it for centuries. That, is simply the power of the word of God. There are moments of great darkness and moments of great illumination.
The salvational aspect of baptism is that it is for the remission of sins. Without the remission of sins there is no salvation because our salvation depends on God's mercy (forgiveness) of sins.
You say that you get Baptized because Christ commands it, but who cares about following Christ's commands who is without faith? No one. Faith comes first and is essential to following Christ's commands
Baptism restores us and places us under grace. Whether we follow in it or not is up to us; the but the mystery of restoration is has nothing to do with whther we believe or not. It's all God's doing.
You believe that you were "restored" before all ages, way before you had any faith, or even existed on this earth, so your rationalization here is faulty.
Does this mean that you don't recognize the Baptisms of Protestants and Catholics?
Catholic and some Protestant baptisms are "valid" insofar as they are done by water and in the name of the Ftaher, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Aby other type of baptism (in the name of Christ, for instance) are not accepted.
All heterodox baptisms must be followed up with chrismation (anoiniting with oil), or confirmation as it is known in the Latin Church, which serves as the Seal of the Holy Spirit which you can never lose.
That's good. Our Sunday Schools start at age 3, and continue for life
Praxis is a little bit more than Bible reading Sunday school, FK.
A bit too strong?? You claimed Trent stated it was forbidden to read or own the Bible. Trent claimed nothing of the sort. What you accused the Church of is blatantly false. It is surprising to me that there are still people here making such a claim, especially since it has been fully addressed on FR so many times.
The Church prohibited owning...a bible without the Church's permission
And then instead of making a retraction of your false claim you attempt to waffle by making another. You didn't need the Church's permission to own a Bible, you just needed to make sure it was an authorized version you owned. You make this sound like a bad thing, that the Church protects its members from false Scripture.
you were not allow to make any interpretation contrary to the Church on fear of excommunication.
True, if you belong to the Church you should adhere to its teachings. Does your church encourage its members to believe contrary to its doctrines?
And just how do you know that? Don't you think that if this were true then we would not need a church, we would not need preachers, we would not need thousands of "feel-good" Protestants books about the Bible and, more importantly, we would all come to the same conclusion!
Oh, yes sir, we wold not be having this discussion at all! All believers would read the Bible the same way. Yet, it turns out that once you leave the Church the number of denominations and interpretations and churches multiply with geometric progression!
And all the Fathers of the Church would have been on the same sheet of music, for they were believers. Let me tell you something: Arius was also a believer. Oh, he believed in God, and he believed in Christ, that's for sure. Yet he did not see God the same way as we do. And so did Nestorius, and so did iconoclasts and monophysites, and Gnostics, and Pelagius, and monothelians, and so did Luther and Calvin and Zwigli, even satan himself — they are all believers.So, how is it then that they interpreted the Bible differently?
If Bible "interprets" itself why are there tens of thousands of different "churches" under the Protestant umbrella, all somewhat in agreement, and all different on some key issues which cause them to split.
So if your interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit and mine is, that means your understanding is as good as mine? That is called relativism and is it is a kiss of death when it comes to religion, because there is nothing relative about absolute truth. Absolute truth can be either accepted or rejected, but not relative.
None of this saves any of them from potential corruption. Men are fallible
But you yourself claim that the Holy Spirit will not let you (the elect) fall away. In other words, we are corruptible, but Christ saves you. What you are really saying is that the Church was made corrupt because it is/was made of non-believers, of the non-elect.
This is the bottom line of the Protestant justification for their own existence: the Church fell into apostasy from the beginning and was resurrected by "true" believers, no doubt "guided by the Holy Spirit." The Church was made up of pretend-believers for 1,500 years; otherwise it would have never become corrupt? Isn't that what you are saying? After all, Christ will not let satan snatch His flock from Him, right?
For, there is no other possible reason for you to say this other than the message that is so loud and clear: the Church is made up of fallible and corrupt men, who were not elect, who could never "hear" or "understand" the Bible correctly. The Protestant community is a group of elect men and women who read the Bible "correctly" despite the fact that they are themselves corruptible by nature, because Christ will not let them fall away.
In that case, we have nothing to talk about.
Yes, the core set of people were Catholics (and by this term I include the Orthodox). Luther didn't invent unmerited grace. From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
Free and unmerited.
Well, if all you have is the Bible, you would certainly be in the dark about that, wouldn't you? But, fortunately, the Church has preserved the teachings of the Fathers who walked with Apostles and were ordained by them (St. Ignatius, for example), and their teachings are recorded so one doesn't have to guess. We would also presume that the Apostles would never allow their disciples to teach anything but true Faith.
You discard the evidence of the early Fathers and then use lack of evidence as "proof" that nothing is known, when in fact there is a contnuous stream of writings and accounts of the of life of the Church, form the Apostoles to this day, so we don't have to guess too much.
I'm sure that many were correct on many things, but error appeared, and then grew, until finally God had had enough and decided to start the Reformation movement
The Reformation movement was hardly wihtout error. Its legacy includes were mass murders, extermination of anabaptists, and endless splintering (Calvinsits, Armenians, etc). You present the Reformation in idyllic terms as if it were free of any corruption and error. It was and it is nothing even close.
It represents personal teaching with all the biases and corruption of the way each individual preacher sees things. In other words, not a single evenagelic mission teaches the same thing.
Correct. The Church never taught "unmerited grace." The difference is created and uncreated grace, but that's a whole different topic and has nothing to do with merit.
We believe that a person is born without the ability to achieve heaven whatsoever without Baptism or at least Baptism by desire because we are born without supernatural grace. This doesn't mean we have a "dead" soul that requires God to resurrect it! And it certainly doesn't mean we are totally depraved. But without God's abiding presence, we can do nothing good. In a sense, we are spiritually dead, and only become alive with God's presence within us.
Regards
Good point. I had not thought of it that way.
Regards
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.