Posted on 07/16/2009 12:27:42 AM PDT by GonzoII
Yes, Scripture has authority, in the sense that where there is disagreement between Scripture and a claimed "statement of God," Scripture is taken as correct.
But it is not a complete repository of all that God has said and done (cf. John 21:25).
I doubt that any reformer ever thought the above. In fact, they considered humans to be fallen creatures and in need of serious help.
Again, it ignores the reformers understanding of fallen humanity, and simply doesn't sound like how they would word such a comment.
To repeat, this simply doesn't sound like the reformers, who were all considerably educated men. All of them would affirm the biblical principle of study. These few I've pulled out are indicative of heartburn I have with a lot on the above list. I consider them caricatures (at very best) of what I believe.
I don’t think I intend anything other than the standard definition of the word: a place where something is stored.
But what is being stored, and how are we to regard it? Do you claim that the Bible is both a complete and solely authoritative record of God's word? Solely authoritative but not complete? Complete (to a point) but not solely authoritative?
It seems nitpicky, but in many respects those (and other) views of "repository" are characteristic of the various players in the many religious controversies we see around us.
Out of all of human history, and some history of the heavenlies, and out of all the words and deeds prompted or committed by God, the Bible contains those God considered necessary.
It does not surprise me that God’s Word is handled in a variety of ways by a variety of individuals. Hasn’t it been that way ever since Eden?
You wrote:
“Honestly, your inflammatory language is kind of tiresome and unnecessary.”
What I wrote is not inflammatory except to those who want to keep their man-made fantasies alive. I also said NOTHING that was unnecessary. If you belong to a sect and are attacking both common sense and the Church thereby, it should be noted and said.
“I don’t put myself in a box defined by any man-made doctrine.”
Sure you do. Do you believe in sola scriptura or sola fide? Both date back to the 16th century. Both are man-made. Period.
“I seek the Kingdom of God, not blindly accept a doctrine whether it be Baptist, Pentecostal, or Catholic.”
I don’t BLINDLY accept anything either. What I do is simple: I humbly accept the fact that Christ is King and His Church teaches by His authority. By the way, Baptists date back to only 1600. Pentecostals? Less than 150 years old. Catholic Church? About A.D. 33.
“Denominations tend to put works and obedience over the Grace of God.”
I’ve never been in a denomination. My Church, which is THE Church puts nothing over the grace of God.
As the CCC says in #2000-2002:
Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.
2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, “since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:”50
[quote from St. Augustine] Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51
2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of “eternal life” respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:
[quote from St. Augustine] If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed “very good” since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.52
And again ... that doesn't really answer the question of what you mean by that.
It's fine to say "necessary," but the term "Bible ONLY" would tend to imply not just "necessary," but also sufficient.
A "necessary and sufficient" viewpoint says that the only place to find God's word is in the Bible ... and thus the Holy Spirit loses importance. That's what the article is talking about and rejecting.
"Necessary" says that you cannot dispense with the Bible as a source of God's word; but it means that we cannot take the Bible as the sole source: we must look to other sources as well. This view is in accord with St. John's description of the Holy Spirit: will teach you all things and(D) bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:26). One implication of this view may be that God may speak "new words" to us that may be also accepted as authoritative. But because the Bible is "necessary," the new words cannot contradict what's already in the Bible. Note that Scripture appears not to place any particular end date on the work of the Holy Spirit, however -- a view which could suggest that it's still possible to add a book to the Canon of Scripture.
"Sufficient" says that we can find God's word in the Bible and trust it, but that it's not the only place we can find a trustworthy exposition of God's word. One might suggest that St. Paul was saying something like this in Romans 1:20, his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made....
Again, you can see each of these at work in the various religious controversies.
It's probably not right to break it out so cleanly into these three categories; I can find something good in each of them, though I suppose I tend more to the "necessary" one more than the others. I'm curious which of them you would see yourself fitting into.
However, it wasn't YOUR Church that Jesus established...It's a pity your religion gets it's hooks into so many before before they've had a chance to get their hooks into the scripture...
But then I assume they aren't looking for Jesus anyway...They are looking for a religion...
Any Church which claims to hve been built upon the Bible must naturally have been established by men and not Christ
Now that's a crazy statement...
Jesus revealed to Paul how He wanted His church set up...Paul set about to put these instructions on paper and made sure they were read in the churches...And those instructions are ONLY in the scriptures...
Sure it is...It's just as biblical as the Trinity...
But you guys still can't find the Trinity in the scriptures so not finding 'scripture only' apparently would be just as impossible for you guys...
But it doesn't contain any non-believers...You got the wrong Church...
Unless you can guarantee that Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are in fact Christian believers, you got the wrong church...
There are absolutely NO unbelievers in the church of Jesus Christ...
Jesus did not establish a church to bring people to Him...The people that turned to Him ARE the church...
You got the wrong church...
By the terms of the false tradition of men known as sola Scriptura, both sola Scriptura and the Trinity must be rejected.
Not his Church, but certainly His Church. Christ established the Catholic Church. It is neither mine nor yours nor vlad's.
It is Christ's.
You wrote:
“However, it wasn’t YOUR Church that Jesus established...”
Yes, actually it was.
“It’s a pity your religion gets it’s hooks into so many before before they’ve had a chance to get their hooks into the scripture...”
Uh, that doesn’t even make sense as a sentence. When you can form a coherent sentence let me know.
“But then I assume they aren’t looking for Jesus anyway...They are looking for a religion...”
We have a religion - Christianity - and it’s from Jesus.
“Now that’s a crazy statement...”
No, it’s perfectly rational. Again, which came first? If the Church came before the New Testament - and it did - then we know the Church is not based on the New Testament. The New Testament is based on the Church’s teachings as handed down from Christ to the Apostles.
“Jesus revealed to Paul how He wanted His church set up...Paul set about to put these instructions on paper and made sure they were read in the churches...And those instructions are ONLY in the scriptures...”
And the Church already existed BEFORE Paul. All Paul did was hand down in writing and orally what was already known and taught.
You wrote:
“But it doesn’t contain any non-believers...You got the wrong Church...”
No, I have the right one.
“Unless you can guarantee that Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are in fact Christian believers, you got the wrong church...”
No. There have always been sinners. Any group which claims not to have sinners is not the Church.
“There are absolutely NO unbelievers in the church of Jesus Christ...”
There have always been sinners and always will be. There were always some who lost faith in Christ as well. Judas was still an apostle even though he planned to betray Christ. Simon Magus was still a baptized Christian at one poit even though he clearly fell and left the Church.
“Jesus did not establish a church to bring people to Him...”
Yes, actually He did. Hence, the Great Commission. That’s why He said “Go” to the Apostles rather than, “They’ll come to you.”
“he people that turned to Him ARE the church...”
The Church told them about Jesus FIRST.
“You got the wrong church...”
Nope. You have the wrong idea and clearly don’t know the Biblical record of the Church.
Matthew ch11 25Then Jesus prayed this prayer: “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike. 26Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way! 27“My Father has given me authority over everything. No one really knows the Son except the Father, and no one really knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Which is what Christ meant here.
Matthew ch 16 15Then he asked them, “Who do you say I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,£ because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 18Now I say to you that you are Peter,£ and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell£ will not conquer it. 19And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you lock on earth will be locked in heaven, and whatever you open on earth will be opened in heaven.” 20Then he sternly warned them not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Christ reveals Himself to us when He calls us. This is the very foundation Christ built the church upon. Man ran churches as well as it's leaders can be led astray and lead many astray as well with them. We are to compare their teachings to what GOD's Word says and not what they say we must do or believe. But the Holy Spirit can not be led astray. So which will I trust for truth and wisdom to understand GOD's Word when reading The Bible? The very one Christ said He would send to us for that very purpose. That is why hell will not conquer it.
“Necessary”, by definition, incorporates “sufficient.”
So far as cessationism is concerned, I am not one. I do believe in the continuing work of the Holy Spirit, but I do not believe in an extension of the scriptures, since the central point of history was the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and the witnesses of His ministry attained their place within NT scripture by virtue of their having been a witness, or an amanuensis of a witness, of the resurrection.
Therefore, as you say, no utterance truly from the Holy Spirit will contradict the already given revelation of God as found in the scripture.
Nope. As an example, let's take your car.
An engine is necessary for your car to work as a car, but it is not sufficient -- you also need gas, tires, and so on.
In the case of Scripture, I agree with you that it's "necessary". Even according to Scripture, however, it is not sufficient.
Nope. Necessary in terms of the car would include all that was required to make it go. That would be parts, accessories, fuel, etc. that are “necessary.”
Had an older gentleman in one of the churches early in my ministry who would always include in his prayers a line about God granting us what we need, but not necessarily what we wanted.
He realized that what we “needed” would get us there. He also recognized that some of the perks were nice, but they weren’t needed.
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.