Your examples do not say anything about the Church being above the Word of God. Annalex and Kosta have correctly said that we BETTER understand the Scriptures, or more precisely, the Holy Traditions of the Apostles (which are only PARTLY the Sacred Scriptures) through the Liturgy, the acts of the Church. The Divine Liturgy is Tradition in action, it is God's heaven meeting God's earth in time. But I don't see the concept of the Church being superior to the Sacred Scripture in those posts. Perhaps you are confusing the Protestant "Word of God" to equal Scripture ALONE. Clearly, the Word of God is NOT Scripture alone. The Scripture is only part of the Word given to man. The Bible ITSELF says this in John's Gospel, for heaven's sake! The WORD of God is a person!!!
Christ is not "unknoweable" through Scripture alone. However, our experience in Christ depends on the Church's interpretation to put it into proper perspective and to bear fruit. Christ's Paschal Mystery really happened. They are objective truths. Thus, they are not subject to opinions as if EACH opinion was as good as any other. You are pushing forward the idea of Relativism, that every religion, every concept of God, is as good as another. The Scripture, in Acts, tells of the Egyptian eunich who asked a disciple of the Lord to explain the Scriptures. We use this as a guide to tell us where we are to find objective truth. It is through the community of faith where we come to qualify our experiences of Christ.
What do you think Sola Scriptura means?
That everything that Christians are to believe is found in the Bible alone. Where does the Bible give us this rule?
I wrote :It's one thing to make false accusations, but beware - from where we are standing, Protestants fare much worse in "bending" the Word of God found in Scriptures.
You said : LOL! I think I'll take my chances on this one. :)
Fine, but stop the accusations, then. Your accusations that Catholics twist Scripture is tiring, from where we stand, since we see you do it all the time. For example, Sola Scriptura - which is nowhere in the Bible. This makes it a self-refuting rule.
Before I knew any of Luther's or Calvin's beliefs, I was already more than 80% in agreement
You came to these conclusions yourself by reading the Bible without ANYONE telling you about Altar Call or Sinner's Prayer? Come on! I am willing to bet that you were open to someone's theology, which you accepted gullibly without hardly cracking the Bible open. They pointed you to a few memorized verses taken out of context, and the rest is history. You accepted someone's truth claims on what the Word of God was saying - thus, you follow traditions.
When I want to know what the Bible really means I try to find out what God thought it meant.
By consulting Luther and Calvin or other Protestants on this thread?
Well, that would be Catholics, as the Bible's meaning MUST be changed in order to match Tradition.
The Tradition came before the Bible, friend. This is common knowledge except to some Protestants.
I did not realize you were on the train of denying the historical truth of the Bible
There you go again, putting words into my posts...I said that I am FREE TO BELIEVE EITHER/OR! I never said that I am absolutely convinced that "X" didn't happen. If science leads me to think that the world was created billions of years ago, I am free to believe it without denying the inerrancy of Scriptures. You, on the other hand, MUST believe everything literally in such situations, since you consider the Bible as an idol to be worshipped and that God wouldn't inspire the Bible in an allegorical sense unless He sent a memo to you.
Does the science of 2006 tell you, or, do you even care at all which are true?
I do not discount science or historical research. But I am aware of its limitations. The Bible is the Word of God, but when science proves without doubt that the world is round, then WE must re-adjust our view of Scriptures. Scriptures do not lie, but sometimes, we misinterpret them. Clearly, when the Psalms talks about the world resting on pillars, we discount that as the knowledge of man and not the inerrant word of God's view of scientific reality.
When God spoke in parables in the NT, it was fairly obvious. It's not so easy in the OT. There could very well be examples, I'm just not aware of them.
How do you know Jesus didn't have an actual person in mind? And regarding the OT, perhaps Jonah is a parable, while Esther certainly could be a historical novel, for example. The point is that God's message is given to man, no matter the historical reality of whether Esther actually became the Queen and quashed the anti-Jewish movement in the diaspora. None of this takes away from the reality of the Christ narratives - which the Church declares as historical truths.
The earth is round? Oh yes, that is from scripture. Thanks for reminding me. :)
Wrong. The Scriptures point to the earth as resting on pillars. Is. 40 says nothing about the earth being round on a three dimensional plane, but a circle on a two-dimensional plane - the sky being a canopy in three dimensions... Are you saying that God's Word to us is that the earth is like a pancake? And Catholics have no freedom to interpret the Scriptures? LOL!!!
Regards
Just as clearly, this is a point on which we will never agree. If, as you say, God gave other of His word only to your Church, then it would be equal with scripture. When two equals apparently disagree, an interpretation is needed. The men of the Church could have let God interpret His own word in the Bible, but we all know they made a very different choice. Therefore, the Bible doesn't mean what it says it means, rather, it means what the Church says it means. That is the reason why I have been saying that the Church puts itself ahead of the Bible. The Church believes it is equal to the Bible and solely controls what the Bible means. ... At least in my Bible, when the word "Word" is used to signify Jesus, it is capitalized, when it is used to denote scripture, it is not.
You are pushing forward the idea of Relativism, that every religion, every concept of God, is as good as another.
I have never said anything like that. I have been accused of it, but I've never said it.
[What Sola Scriptura means:] That everything that Christians are to believe is found in the Bible alone. Where does the Bible give us this rule?
Here are a few supporting verses:
1 Cor. 4:6 : Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."
Luke 1:1-4 : 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Paul first examines oral tradition, and then false writings. He concludes that to be SURE, he must write these things down.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 : 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Notice that it says EVERY GOOD WORK. It does not say that man is prepared for MOST good works. Neither does it say that man is PARTIALLY prepared for every good work.
Your accusations that Catholics twist Scripture is tiring, from where we stand, since we see you do it all the time. For example, Sola Scriptura - which is nowhere in the Bible. This makes it a self-refuting rule.
Oh, come on! You accuse me and my side to every degree you take it. Any view that does not match yours is a twisting of the scripture. You can't deny you argue that. Just above, I gave three examples of support for Sola Scriptura. I could have given more. A nickel says you brush them all aside as a twisting of the scripture.
You came to these conclusions yourself by reading the Bible without ANYONE telling you about Altar Call or Sinner's Prayer? Come on! I am willing to bet that you were open to someone's theology, which you accepted gullibly without hardly cracking the Bible open. They pointed you to a few memorized verses taken out of context, and the rest is history.
I didn't know what an Altar Call was until I became a Southern Baptist, 8 YEARS after saying the sinner's prayer. Of course I learned the basics of Christianity before I said the sinner's prayer. But there was no deep theology attached to what I was taught. I learned it at an interdenominational Bible study. One of the lead teachers was a CATHOLIC!!! Reading of scripture was encouraged. It was for seekers, so no one got into any of the things we are talking about here. It happened to be a Lutheran who told me what the sinner's prayer was, but she was 17 too. She had no knowledge of any of this stuff.
Yes, I did have a one-on-one Bible study at my SB church, but it had nothing to do with my sinner's prayer, and the names of Luther or Calvin never came up once. Of course I had to come to my beliefs by considering the work of others, and how it matched what the scripture says. I never said any differently. Otherwise, I WOULD have just made it up myself. I DID come to the belief that the scripture has to be true without the help of any other people.
The Tradition came before the Bible, friend. This is common knowledge except to some Protestants.
I know there were lots of "traditional" teachings floating around, but it took a popular vote among men to decide which were heretical and which were of the Catholic Church. You have said yourself that any individual Father was perfectly capable of writing down error. It took a vote to sift through it all. Since the voters were also fallible men, I have no confidence that the correct result was reached in each and every single case.
If science leads me to think that the world was created billions of years ago, I am free to believe it without denying the inerrancy of Scriptures. You, on the other hand, MUST believe everything literally in such situations, since you consider the Bible as an idol to be worshipped and that God wouldn't inspire the Bible in an allegorical sense unless He sent a memo to you.
My, my, how little you understand us. I happen to hold the view that without evidence to the contrary, that I should take the accounts of the Bible at face value. I DID reach that conclusion without knowing or hearing any theology about it, other than the Bible is God's inerrant word. I truly have no idea if that makes me a good Calvinist or not. I wouldn't care if it didn't because I know I would not be abandoned by my side for saying so.
I think that your accusing me of idol worship is pretty hilarious given the circumstances. ... When God decided to use allegory in the Bible He did send me a memo. It was in the form of other scripture.
Scriptures do not lie, but sometimes, we misinterpret them.
Yes, I fully agree.
The Scriptures point to the earth as resting on pillars. Is. 40 says nothing about the earth being round on a three dimensional plane, but a circle on a two-dimensional plane - the sky being a canopy in three dimensions...
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you are pro-actively interpreting AGAINST the scripture matching science. You go ahead and believe that the "pillar" verses were meant to be taken to mean that posts were actually supporting the earth physically. BTW, which tradition is being protected by interpreting the Bible to be filled with scientific errors?