Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2
Most Protestant Christians believe that the Bible is the only source concerning faith. According to them, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative, teaching Church. All that they need is the Bible in order to learn about the faith and to live a Christian life. The "Bible Alone" teaching can be appealing in its simplicity, but it suffers from fundamental problems. A few are considered here.
First the Bible itself states that not everything important to the Christian faith is recorded in it. For example, not everything that Christ did is recorded in the inspired Books:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25; RSV]
According to John 20:31, some things have been recorded in the Gospel in order to come to know Christ; however, John 21:25 suggests that there is still more to know about Him. At least for St. John the Apostle, there was more that he needed to teach which was not recorded in the Bible:
I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. [3 John 13-14]
Also St. Paul instructs Timothy on how to orally pass on the teachings of the faith:
...what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim. 2:2]
St. Paul even commands (2 Thess. 3:6) the Thessalonian Christians to follow the oral Traditions of the Apostles:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle). [2 Thess. 2:15]
These commands promoting Oral Tradition would be quite strange, if only the Bible were needed to pass on the entire Christian faith.
A second problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is canonicity - i.e. which Books belong in the Bible? It must be remembered that the Books of the Bible were written individually along with other religious books. Centuries later the Church compiled together the inspired Books under one cover to form the "Bible." A big question in the early Church was which books are the inspired written Word of God. (Inspired=written by men but authored by God; See Catechism of the Catholic Church 106.)
Scripture did not come with an "inspired" Table of Contents. Nowhere in the sacred texts are all the Books listed. There are some Books cited in the sacred writings but these lists are vague and incomplete (Acts 28:23; 2 Peter 3:16). There are also references to books not found in the Bible, such as St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). St. Paul even encourages the Colossians to read this epistle, but still it is not in the Bible. Jesus in the Gospel never attempts to list the "official" Books of the Old Testament (OT). This issue was hotly debated in His day. Today Protestant and Catholic Christians disagree over which Books belong in the OT. Catholics follow the list in the Septuagint (2nd century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture) while Protestants follow the list used by the Pharisees. A list from Jesus could have eliminated this problem, but no such list is found in the Gospel. As a result the Bible needs a visible authority outside of itself to list the inspired sacred Books. This authority must be guided by the Holy Spirit since these Books are from the Holy Spirit.
Some Christians claim that the Table of Contents in their Bible lists the inspired Books. Even though found in modern Bibles, the Table of Contents is still not inspired. It is not the Word of God but words added later by human editors, much similar to footnotes. The Table of Contents is basically the opinion of the publishing editor. Others may claim that the closing verses in the Book of Revelation, specifically Rev. 22:18-19, cap off the Bible and define all the preceding Books as inspired by God. But do these verses apply to the whole Bible or only the Book of Revelation? Another flaw with this idea is that not all Bibles have the same number of Books. As alluded to above, Catholic and Protestant Bibles contain different numbers of OT Books, yet all these Bibles close with the same verses: Rev. 22:18ff. Both cannot be right. Finally the Book of Deuteronomy contains similar verses (4:2 & 12:32). Does this imply that the Books after Deuteronomy are not inspired by God? No.
A third problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is proper understanding of critical Bible passages. Most Protestant Christians promote personal interpretation of the Bible, i.e. anyone can interpret these passages by himself. Unfortunately this leads to chaos. For example over Baptism, some Protestants accept the validity of infant Baptism, while others do not. Some believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation, citing Mark 16:16, while others disagree by citing John 3:16. They all claim to be Bible-based, but still they disagree over fundamental issues regarding salvation. Sadly the "Yellow Pages" phone directory is a witness to the many "Bible-Based" churches who disagree with each other over key issues of the Christian faith. Personal interpretation of the Bible naturally leads to a mire of human doctrines as a result of differing personal opinions.
The Bible was not written as a catechism. It is a collection of many different styles of writing - poetry, history, parables, letters, songs, etc. - requiring different ways of understanding. Sometimes Jesus in the Gospel purposely taught in figurative language and parables, which makes literal interpretation impossible. Even St. Peter admits that St. Paul's Epistles can be difficult to understand:
...Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. [2 Peter 3:15-16]
Finally the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30ff needed St. Philip to explain the Book of Isaiah. Obviously not everyone can understand the meaning of Scripture by simply reading it. More is required. These difficulties in the Bible demand an independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Even the Bible points to the importance of the Church for teaching the Truth. According to St. Peter in the Bible:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [2 Peter 1:20-21]
At least prophecies in the Bible are not a matter of personal interpretation. These prophesies must be properly interpreted by "men moved by the Holy Spirit" since the Holy Spirit is the Author. These "men" are the Bishops of the Church - the successors to the Apostles (Acts 20:28-32). Finally the Bible does not call itself the bulwark of the truth; however, St. Paul does make reference to the Church in those terms:
...the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [1 Tim. 3:15]
According to the Bible, the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
All Christians, including Catholics, should read the Bible in order to grow more in the faith; however, we still need the Church. The Church is needed to accurately pass on Apostolic Tradition (Romans 10:17), define the canon of the Bible (i.e. list the inspired Books), safeguard the accurate transmission (e.g. translations) of the Bible and interpret key passages, all with guidance from the Holy Spirit according to God's Will. The Church is needed for other reasons too. It must be understood that the Church is not merely men making arbitrary decisions but men executing authority from God guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church may at times be tested by scandals or scarred by the sins of men. We may sometimes disagree with the policies of the Church, but she is still the instrument of the Holy Spirit. This visible Church is the one built by Jesus Christ on St. Peter, the rock (Matt. 16:18-19; John 1:24). This is the Catholic Church.
Where and what is the axiom in my learning that the stove is hot by touching it?
How is that the same as starting with an axiom, "which is 'self-evident' to me,'" as you put it?
You write "I aver that the Truth of Reality is in-built, from the moment of Creation, via Logos, Alpha and Omega."
Based on what evidence?
I believe the language of mathematics/logics authoritatively expresses this Reality
I couldn't disagree more. The Hubble Space Telescope is a living example of this. Someone trusted the numbers more than reality and the Telescope was launched with 'myopic' optics. On paper, however, the instrument was 'flawless.'
That is, it seems you propose yourself as the "measure" of all that is.
And who isn't? But I don't force my imagination on others as self-evident truth.
To which I might say: Well, this may be the measure of you; but not necessarily of the rest of us. God have mercy....
When the "rest of us" say things like "On the other hand I start with an axiom, which is "self-evident" to me,"I would say the "rest of us" are no different.
All I can say (suggest) is that, to the extent you put the needful criteria of your self first, you occlude God's Truth.
I assume you you believe the Bible, which says that all have fallen short of the glory of God, which would include both of us as well. If you are going to judge others, bear in mind that perhaps your ego also occludes God's Truth, whatever it may be?
You know, I am so amazed how readily self-professed Christians can accuse, indeed, condemn, someone who is not on their sheet of music.
My point about axioms is that they are not arbitrary, nor subjectively determined in any sense
Oh?
The crucial point about the mathematical axiom is that it is a universal by definition
But it's not real; it's hypothetical.
That is, applying to all times and places whatsoever, for all time.
Hypothetically speaking...
Hellow Quix, how's the weather where you are?
Quix, all I said "Yet those who are deprived of the gift are condemned." To which you accuse me "condemning" God! Where in my statement is the condemnation of God, or better yet "whole convoluted pile of rationalized UNBiblical intellectualizations?"
It's amazing that you can post so much and say nothing of substance or relevance.
Our judgments on this thread concern beliefs, spirituality, theology, philosophy, worldviews and paradigms.
And we are polar opposites to you on most of these. Christianity is not compatible with metaphysical naturalism.
Concerning mathematics and universals, every time a mathematician uses a variable in a formula it attests to the universality of the formula.
And we are polar opposites on mathematical paradigms. The Platonist paradigm says the geometry exists and the mathematician comes along and discovers it. The Aristotlean paradigm says the mathematician invents the geometry.
Based on what evidence?
But if a person precludes God on principle under metaphysical naturalism, he cannot receive even that evidence.
Very well put Mark. For instance in designing tarditional aspheric correctors for astronomical optics known as "Schimidt Correctors" we can apply 4th order formula for an approximate shape, usually sufficient for most applications, of the type x (deviation from flattness) = a + b4.
If the design calls for higher precision for special application cameras (due to presence of higher order abberations), higher order correction expressions are applied. In fact the expression can be carried ad infinitum, i.e. a + b4 + c6 + d8 ... + yn, but it is generally true that beyond the 6th order the formula becomes a theoretical curiosity untenable in practice.
If I presneted the production shop work shop supervisor with anything higher than the 6th order request, he would laugh at me!
Beyond certain this point mathematical theory no longer describes reality accessible to us. It becomes meaningless.
Reality remains what it is, whether we can discern it or not, but if ti doesn't apply to us it is meaningless. hence the wisdom that the world is the way it is even if we don;t understand it. That which we can not detect and experience is meaningless and irrelevant.
The degree to which mathematics describe reality accurately is dictated by our reality and not mathematics, because mathematics is a tool devised by man and applied to his reality and for his benefit!
I always used to say to apprentices learning how to make optics that trying to make an optical flat to 1/100 of a wavelength is an exercise in futility given that ordinary interference tests can fairly accurately measure about 1/20 wavelength.
At such precision even breathing on (never mind touching) the optical surface alters that precision by a wide margin. TO appreciate what I am talking about 1 wavelength (λ) = 0.000002 inches in yellow sodium emission of 550 nm, so 1/20 wave = 1–8, or 0.00000001 inches.
Then what is God?
Rom 1:20
Paul doens't say Godhead but theiotes, that is — divinity or divine nature. Is he suggesting believers not onyl see [sic] the invisible but also understand divine nature????
Wrong perspective. We are condemned already
But only those God gives the ears and the eyes will be saved, by God's choice. Maybe he didn't make neough...
He that believeth on him is not condemned
But you can't believe unless it is has been "given."
It is by God's grace that any are saved
Then we wouldn't need the eyes and the ears, would we? And why does the Bible say in another place "work out your own salvation" and suggests we need to find the narrow path that leads there.
No it's not. It's an meaning spiritually.
More imprtantly, CHRIST never mentioned it . The term is a Pauline innovation. It appears nowhere in the OT or the NT except in 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Revelation 11:8.
Likewise, your promotion of eignosis as biblical is somewhat misleading, imo. Like pnematikos, this one doesn't appear in the Gospels or the OT. That's because it is yet another Pauline innovation never spoken by Christ. It is also encountered in Pualine-like deuterocnaonicals, Hebrews, and 2 Peter, as well as in 8 of the Pauline Epistles.
Both words are a latter development in the Christian thought unknown in the Gospel accounts, which means theydid not exist as concepts or teaching material.
Have increasingly observed and experienced as I've aged . . .
any 'improvement' in thinking and understanding
seems to come along lines of simplicity . . .
Except you become as a little child, you shall in no wise enter . . .
Yet, there is something about the carnal heart of unredeemed man that compulsively HAS to complicate it.
Methinks that the enemy's role in pushing, urging us to complicate it . . . is along the lines of . . . ego, arrogance, subtrafuge, obsfucation, deception . . .
Complex things hide things easier & more. Silverware that's totally simple & plain costs more because blemishes show up immediately, easily.
When we allow the enemy to get us all bound up in our underwear over complex postulations, what-if's, parsing to the nth degree what began with God as simple straight-forward declarations . . . it ends up a corollary of many words leads to sin.
The Pharisees were PhD masters at parsing words and justifying with lengthy hyper-intellectualized and masterfully erudite SOUNDING rationalizations all manner of burdensome hoop-jumping in order to be considered right, rational, 'righteous.'
And their grandest achievement was to be labeled white-washed tombs by The Creator of All that Is.
Real grandly erudite & logical, that.
Except one become as a child . . . laying aside all one's 'learned' as a clever 'mature' 'adult.' . . . all the bias, all the smugness, all the brilliant conclusions, all the self-justifications, all the lawyerly expositions about how God couldn't have this and had to do that and must now do thus and so according to 'MY' prescription and construction on reality . . .
one shall in no wise enter in . . .
a little child that simply says, YES, DADDY . . . AND CONTINUALLY SAYS 'YES, DADDY' . . . JOYFULLY, CONFIDENTLY, ABANDONEDLY.
Ahhhhhh . . . abandon . . .
The self-righteous, intellectual, self-justified, self-rationalized, intellectual kings of their own pointy mountains CANNOT abandon to God Almighty . . .
That would mean losing, giving up, being without
That would mean ALMIGHTY GOD was in control of them, their heart, their priorities, agenda, being, THEIR ALL.
That seems to be intolerable for folks unwilling to become as a little child.
. . . MERCIFULLY, there is NO other route to Heaven.
Thanks for your kind reply.
I couldn’t disagree more. The Hubble Space Telescope is a living example of this. Someone trusted the numbers more than reality and the Telescope was launched with ‘myopic’ optics. On paper, however, the instrument was ‘flawless.’
###
IIRC, . . . that describes an error
WITH the numbers.
NOT an error OF the numbers.
Numbers are pretty basic critters.
The fallible humans goofed WITH the numbers. The numbers just sat there—puzzle pieces in the humans’ hands.
New Mexico sun, mostly . . . as usual for this time of year.
Some were complaining about lack of same for several weeks of rain, snow and cloudiness . . . unusually long period of same for NM. Usually 2-3 days at a time is all we have. I guess it was a few weeks or so.
I hope and trust you are warm and comfortable wherever you are.
Stack up all your pontifications about God.
Assertions were made on the other side about a contingency God set up.
You noted that those not fulfilling God’s requirement in said contingency would be condemned . . . as though said condemnation was somehow unfitting, unfair.
That implies the God behind said condemnation was unfair.
I’m sure you can weasel about in terms of what was explicitly said.
Yet, you are plenty smart to know what the implications were of what you knowingly wrote and wrote for what purpose.
It’s amazing that you can post so much and pretend and deny the clear implications of so many words so brazenly and glibly.
Hoo Yeah! and then you better put a helmet on!
Honestly bb and Ag there are many times I've heard the click of a ratchet when I read your posts 8-)I would aspire to your level of understanding but I feel more destined for the rational craziness of bro' Quix!
You're all a great blessing to this lurker...please do carry on!
Thanks for your kind words.
God’s best to you and yours.
Sorry dear kosta, the Scripture coincides with the actual life a believer has. One can deny it, but when one has it and rejoices in remaining in fellowship with God, so He continues His work, it is intuitively obvious despite any declaration by any other man.
Attempts to reason it away are simply attempts to distract with counterfeit reasoning. Reasoning with my heart, I have no doubt as to the veracity of PNEUMATIKOS provided by God the Holy Spirit, nor GNOSIS and EPIGNOSIS.
Luke Timothy and Peter also speak of GNOSIS as well as EPIGNOSIS.
Mark definitely speaks to the perception Jesus Christ had in his human spirit of the reasonings in the hearts of the scribes and Pharisees in Mark 2:6-10.
This is understood once one has been given a human spirit by God the Holy Spirit and He provides such perception.
Considering the Church Age didn’t begin until that time, marked by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer, the observation of this not being previously recognized is not surprising. It couldn;t have been for there had not yet been the perfect sacrifice to give God the liberty in His immutable nature to regenerate the human spirit in the believer.
Nevertheless, it was possible for Jesus Christ to have that PNEUMATIKOS and is recorded in Mark 2:6-10.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" - I Cor 2;9
Just so, the God that hides himself.. (from view)..
When my glory passes by, I will put you(Moses) in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. -Ex33;22
AND so was it, when God MOONED Moses...
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.