Posted on 03/24/2008 3:36:37 PM PDT by annalex
This is quite scriptural, like it or not, unlike the "confusion of law and Gospel" bugaboo that Luther invented from thin air.
The Holy Spirit worked through the the apostles and bishops of the Church, and the Holy Scripture resulted.
So you withdraw your original offer to swap pings? How come?
Well, technically you are right, but it was Luther who put the Protestant scripture-obfuscation machine in motion.
Just think what trouble is brewed, when you add the assumption of a shared "universal wisdom", one untouched by the Fall and Sin (and one that Protestants must therefore somehow be suppressing in themselves and others), to that cauldron.
Where does the author do that?
There are some very clear messages in scripture and then there are some not so clear messages. Some have a better handle on what those messages are than others.
If the Holy Spirit authenticates any scriptural interpretation, then it is by this very fact is an extra-scriptural authority.
Calvin's argument (among other things) is that even the most basic Christian understands and accepts the word of God as truth. You don't need "extra-scriptural" authority to tell you so. Forgive my anecdotal experience but I remember when I became a Christian, the very first thing I confronted was the authenticity of the virgin birth (by the pastor's wife no less). I just simply pointed to the scriptures and said, "There it is." I didn't need to ask what did the early church fathers have to say about the matter. It is rather obvious. Was it heresy that I could interpret the virgin birth as being true simply by reading the scriptures? I don't need someone telling me the Bible is true. I know it's true because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it being true. That doesn't mean I understand everything. It simply means that I know it's true.
Where extra-authority helps is in passages that one lack the historical perspective on. In these cases one simply read what the person has to say and then search the scriptures to see if these things are so. The only difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics form a committee to decide; Protestants feel that God will work His will to guide people to the truth.
Then where is the mention of Korah whom i've referred to three times now?
I will not ping you to articles; however, if someone makes a post to which you are pinged, I will respond to the entire visible portion of the ping list, and that will include you. I also reserve the right to respond to any of your posts. You are, of course, free to ignore any pings.
Since the Jews had changed their canon, it was a logical approach.
The Catholic Church is a divine insitution established by Christ in one of those self-evident scriptural passages, and not a "committee".
Here are a couple of places:
The Reformers asserted Proposition A: "All revealed truth is to be found in the inspired Scriptures." However, this is quite useless unless we know which books are meant by the "inspired Scriptures."
"if all revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books," then that leaves no room for the Holy Spirit to reveal directly and non-verbally one truth which cannot be found in any passage of those books,
Very rigid interpretations taken to extremes. This is not logic, but it might work as lawyering. Of course, tbe Bible isn't a modern legal document (thankfully) meant to withstand this kind of lawyering.
Religion Moderator, please note that I have now made three requests for this individual not to ping me, under any circumstances, to threads or posts again.
The Jews changed their canon at Jamnia in 90AD. The Church was well aware of that at the time; in fact, it was the Hebrew council that separated Christianity from Judaism. Luther came up with his fantasies 14+ centuries later.
A book is either inspired or not. That may be “rigid” but them’s the facts.
While Catholics, on the other hand, continually come up with new fantasies.
Moderator, we need a clarification here. I will remove Alex from my ping list, but he cannot demand that I never post to him, and it is onerous to pick out his name when repsonding to list-addressed posts.
I will be happy to address any doctrine of the Catholic Church, including those that were late in formulation, on a thread where it would be on topic. This one happens to be a criticism of the sola scriptura superstition.
I'm not talking about his abuse of the word "inspired", but the abuse of the word "all". Making a very narrow definition of exclusivity with the word "all" is great for lawyering, but an invalid use of logic.
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.