Posted on 02/05/2006 12:36:59 PM PST by Gamecock
"You go ahead and rely on man's tradition. "
"I'll trust God."
That's the thing - you rely upon "man's tradition" too. You're Reformed - and despite your protestations to the contrary, you depend upon the exegesis of your forebearers to come to your own conclusions. You rely upon fundamental assumptions derived from your own experiences and those church teachers who influence you. I don't mean to get all post-modern on you, but the simple fact is that no one can read the naked words on the page of the Bible and interpret it by themselves without depending upon some teacher outside themselves. Every single person brings assumptions and prejudices to their hermaneutic; it is unavoidable.
You may object, "No! What I believe is what the Bible says, and nothing more!" No, you believe what you think the Bible says (and, for what its worth, I agree with you a lot more than I disagree with you), but in the end, it's only our best, educated guess.
So, enough of the Reformation-era polemics - on both sides that reduce the debate to bumper-sticker length. It is a false dichotomy to say that you rely upon God, and the Catholic Church relies on men's Tradition. You do too, just as much as they do.
How's the water?
Believe in what? Where do people get their information to make an informed decision to believe?
Regards
The Holy Spirit through The Church, of which I am a member.
He makes a valid point, whether he is "swimming" or not. By attacking the Catholic Church, you merely bite the hand that has given you the Scriptures in the first place. You implicitly trust their decisions on what is Scripture, while discarding the claims made by such Gnostic groups as those who follow the Da Vinci Code and other such nonsense. But WE say the latter is nonsense ONLY because we trust the Catholic Church's table of contents more than the Gnostics. Otherwise, why DO you reject the Gospel of Thomas???
NO ONE comes to the Scriptures without some paradigm or lense that we read it through. Men from different faith traditions read it differently, sometimes diametrically opposed. That's a simple fact.
Regards
The Mormons say they are assured that they are right because of "the burning in their breast."
Experience and alleged supernatural revelation is not a very strong argument. Every mystically-inclined religious person - whether Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, or even Islamic - can make an existential argument. Such an argument is therefore highly dubious, if not worthless.
Yes, the Holy Spirit DOES come to us through the Church. So why do you disagree with some of what the Holy Spirit teaches His Church, in some cases, for 2000 years? Is the Spirit teaching men different teachings, or are men following their own fancies?
Regards
***By attacking the Catholic Church, you merely bite the hand that has given you the Scriptures in the first place.***
The Holy Spirit gave us Scripture and ultimatly kept it safe. If He used the RC church to that end for a period of time, so be it.
Or, even more intriguing: why is the book of James (to pick a book) canonical, but the Didache or 1Clement not? All are quite orthodox.
True, which is why the Catholic Church is very skeptical about such matters, and even if deemed worthy of belief, does not make it a part of the Deposit of Faith. In other words, what happened at Fatima, though worthy of belief, is not a required belief by a practicing Catholic. Private revelations are always subject to misinterpretation.
Regards
What makes you think that the Catholic Church's version was the REAL version being guarded by the Spirit? Implicitly, you are trusting that the Catholic Church's claim is true - that THEY and THEY ALONE present God's Word. Either you trust the Church's claim, or you don't. By saying the Spirit guarded it means you are choosing one particular organization's claim over another...
Regards
See, that's the problem with you people. If you don't march in lockstep and acccept the groupthink, then you must be either a Catholic or an atheist.
I reject your false dichotomies. I am a Reformed Christian with enormous respect for the Early Church Fathers and the Medieval scholastics (e.g. Aquinas) and Catholic theologians descended from their line, such as B16. I don't buy all their conclusions, but they're worth a listen.
Once you can wrap your minds around the fact that Rome is not the enemy, then you'll understand where I'm coming from.
What do you mean by that?
The difference between me and the Bible is that Gamecock and I come from the same culture. The Bible is 2000 years old, written for a different culture that even thinks differently. There are 2000 years of Church histories, replete with schisms and contraversies that color our reading of the Scripture.
Even with alleged common ground between me and Gamecock, he still misunderstands me because he thinks in a false dichotomy.
***Even with alleged common ground between me and Gamecock, he still misunderstands me because he thinks in a false dichotomy.***
I have never alleged to have any common ground with you. Perhaps it is you who misunderstands.
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.