Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
“A discipline that is required by Church law to me is not a discipline.”
Well, what is it? If you disagree with Church law, are you then a part of the Church? If you practice different than Church law, are you then a part of the Church?
The Apostles didn’t let individuals’ interpretations of the Good News stand. They knocked ‘em down as they came up. Paul especially goes after practices and scolds and corrects. If Paul would scrutinize you or me, would he be inclined to admonish and correct? I think he would.
The Church has the obligation to impose discipline on its members. Else, there is no need of the Church and everyone is his own Pope, creating his own theology, editing his own Bible and defining the path to his own salvation. Handbaskets, anyone?
These are at the core, very well done. There are several not mentioned that are also at the core.
God extends His redeeming Grace to all. Jesus came to save the whole world.
Paul’s core was Jesus Christ. We believe that very strongly and count Paul as the second greatest of all the Apostles. Paul was not mistaken or in error. Those who came after him were and are when they replace Jesus with Paul and misinterpret Paul’s works.
If the words of Jesus and the words of Paul appear to disagree, one must examine the words of Paul for misinterpretation. Paul cannot contradict Jesus. When Jesus says ‘all the world’ and words of Paul appear to say different, it is the words of Paul that are misinterpreted, not the words of Jesus.
Excellent point and good scripture, WM! :)
Thanks Brother! I've been enjoying your posts. Your patience is way above the norm.
Not a good baseball year for the Cards, or the White Sox.
When the Pope contradicts the bible, it used to be that the bible took precedence but now the tradition has become the other way around. The Pope is authority over the written word of God.
Yes, I have long been arguing that Tradition must trump the scriptures in their faith. We know that the Bible even speaks up for itself through other scripture, but none of this counts. Whatever the Church (or pope) says the Bible means, that's what it means, other scripture notwithstanding.
Couldn't the Galatians have rightfully argue they were imposing Church discipline by requiring everyone to be circumcised? When does imposing the Church's discipline on someone turn into legalism?
This isn't an issue of everyman being his own Pope. This is a issue where some try to impose their will on others contrary to what is written in scripture.
Mark, I don't understand what you are saying here, I don't want to misinterpret (smile). Would you please give me an example?
Where do Church practices contradict Scripture?
Amen, I agree in full. I also read recently (I think it was from you) a long list of salutation verses that make it clear that the ultimate audience was the whole family of believers.
Here are some examples:
Rom.9
[15] For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
[16] So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.
[18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he -
Matt.5
[7] Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Matt.6
[14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you;
[15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Rom.3
[24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom.5
[9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Matt.12
[37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
Rom.5
[21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John.5
[24] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
I’m kinda in the middle of things, but here are some Gospel verses:
The commandments (Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, strength and spirit; Love your neighbour as yourself): Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:30-33 and Luke 10:27.
Follow him: Matthew 16:24, Matthew 19:21, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 18:22 and John 12:26.
Sell your possessions, give the money to the poor and follow him: Luke 14:33, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22, Matthew 19:21 and Luke 12:33. Give to the poor: Luke 11:41 and Luke 14:13.
Faith: Did the disciples lack anything when Jesus sent them out? – Luke 22:35. Don’t worry about where your food or clothing is coming from: Matthew 6:25-31 and Luke 12:22-23.
Also, I found this little discourse about the apparent conflict between James and Paul:
The common but incorrect interpretation, leading to an apparent contradiction between Paul and James:
Paul supposedly said: Justification not by our good works, but by our faith in Jesus alone (see Gal 2:15—3:14 & Rom 3:21—4:25)
James supposedly said: Justification by our good works, not by our faith in God alone (see James 2:14-26)
Errors with these interpretations:
Paul is not talking about “good works”; he says “works of the Law” = Jewish/Mosaic laws on circumcision, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, etc.
For James, “works” are acts of charity = care for widows, orphans & the poor, love for neighbors, etc. (1:27; 2:8; 2:15-16)
Paul is not opposed to “good works”; he sees them as a necessary consequence (but not the foundation) of Christian life (Rom 12-15).
Similarly, James is not opposed to faith; he presupposes it, but stresses that authentic faith must be put into action, not merely words.
Paul is not talking primarily about our “faith in Jesus”; he means the “faith of Jesus” in God; our faith is a secondary response.
In contrast, James does mean people’s faith, primarily believing in God (2:23) but also believing in Jesus (2:1).
Paul does not presuppose the same definition of “faith” as James; for Paul, “faith” means “trusting” God, “entrusting oneself” to God’s plans.
For James, “faith” is more of an intellectual assent to theological truths, e.g. “believing that God is one” (2:19).
Paul did not write the word “alone” in Rom 3:28; Martin Luther was the one who added the word “allein” in his German Bible translation.
James does not write “by works alone” but stresses “not by faith alone”; he maintains that both have to go together.
Summary:
. Paul / James
Definitions of Key Terms: “faith” = trusting acceptance of God’s will
“works of the law” = regulations of the Jewish Torah
“faith” = intellectual assent to theological truths (2:19)
“works” = good deeds; putting religion into action (1:22-27)
Foundation of Justification,
Reason for Salvation: Jesus’ actions: the “faith of Jesus” in God
(i.e. Jesus’ trust, that led to his death on the cross)
not our actions: not fulfilling the “works of the Law”
adoption: God gave us birth by the word of truth (1:18)
and election: God chose the poor to be heirs of the kingdom (2:5)
Consequences for People,
Results of Being Saved: 1) We need to have faith/trust in Jesus (Rom 1-11)
and
2) We need to live ethically (Rom 12-15) 1) Our faith in Jesus, and 2) our works of charity;
both are necessary together (2:14-26)
Sorry it got a little scrambled. Hope it helps.
Should priests be allowed to marry?
You may have missed a portion of the reply in 8591:
For Paul says a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” and “must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.
This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.
In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.
The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!
The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise “self-control” (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of “managing his household well,” even if his “household” is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).
The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).
Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be “soldiers” of Christ must avoid “civilian pursuits”: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these “civilian pursuits.”
An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1–2).
You mean the part where celebracy is a good thing? Quite frankly, that posted wherever you picked it up is full of contradictions. I already pointed out:
But the kicker is the use of Jeremiah. It should be noted that Jeremiah was told by God not to marry because everyone was going to be killed by the sword or famine. God was sparing Jeremiah from having to watch his wife die. This hardly has anything to do with Jeremiah giving up marriage to follow a higher calling.
Romans 9: Paul is teaching how one is saved.
Matt.5,6: Jesus is teaching how a saved one is to live.
Romans 3: Paul is teaching forensic justification.
Matt.21: Jesus is teaching Pharisees about condemnation
The last example has the same teaching lesson.
Romans 5: Paul teaching lifethrough Christ.
John 5: John teaching life through Christ.
What point are you trying to make with the gospel verses? I'm not getting that.
Sorry, I don't have the time today to go off on a tangent about Paul & James.
If you wish, I can post it again.
LOL. Sure post it again with your spin. Pay close attention to Hebrews 10:12-18.
Yes. It is interesting that the East allow their priests to marry and the west does not.
Let me ask you, and I've included our friend kawaii in on this since he provided the Orthodox perspective, do you think Catholic priests are more dedicated or "ideally suited" for the priesthood since they renounced marriage more so than the Orthodox priests who have not?
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.