Replies

Quix wrote:
“Seems to me you’re waving a lot of scholarship aside about the Scriptures about Christ’s blood siblings.”

And you’re not?

A lot of things have been written since 1517, in other words, things that were not written while in fear of, indebted to, or in service of, Rome. Now, I grant you that most of this stuff cannot be found in your average American Bible bookstore, and perhaps not even on the net. And there is plenty of it that was not written in English and much of it remains untranslated from German and Latin. But that doesn’t mean it is not valid and well thought out in the fear of God.

By the way, which scholarship am I waving off? Name it.

And before you get too wrapped up in this, realize two things. First, I reluctantly entered into this and I don’t take a position here, because this is an adiaphoron. If you don’t understand the term and what its significance, then perhaps your knowledge of reformation theology is wanting. That it is an adiaphoron also means that I disagree completely with Rome, and what they have done by proclaiming uncertainty certain, and where they have taken their teachings about Mary. They have built their falsehood on a foundation of uncertainty. Second, I am trying to refocus people’s efforts to that which needs to be addressed, and can be verified by the clear words of Scripture. Go after Rome for what Rome truly is guilty of. And defend sola scriptura! For in its defense opinion counts nothing, whether of the pope or of any individual.

I will also repeat, I am not going to stay with this topic long. It is not worth the effort. It is an adiaphoron!!!!!!!! I will let the obsessees, both Roman and contrary, fight it out. Although what the victory could possibly be I have no idea.

BTW,

I think the snootiness over

adiaphoron

trashed a lot of your graciousness in my eyes.

It’a pet peeve of mine . . . I strongly believe that rare words on public forums like this one need a definition in their first usage in a thread. Otherwise, it’s just a vain-glorious rather haughty kind of linguistic upsmanship to use them.

Then to make some sort of egregious emphasis about such a term as a measure of someone else’s knowledge or scholarship is wayyyyy over the top unnecessary and ostentaciously elitist.

What rubbish.

For those scratching their heads about the term:

n. (pl. -ra), matter of indifference; Theology, religious observance left to conscience; amoral matter. adiaphorism, n. belief in doctrine of adiaphora. adiaphorist, n. adiaphoristic, adj. applied to certain controversies on religious observances. adiaphorous, adj. neutral; indifferent, neither right nor wrong (of conduct, etc.)

Many of us hereon do NOT PRETEND to be Bible scholars in any formal sense of the word.

Some of us have read a lot. Some, like me, have taken several courses at a Bible school or college. Some have not done that.

Many have read their Bibles prayerfully daily for years. Holy Spirit has given them vast insights into the truths of Scripture.

I’ll take farmer Joe’s insights from such a walk with God over a Harvard professor’s any day.

I think it’s wonderful that more formal Bible scholars and laymen like myself can be iron sharpening iron hereon.

Snooty flinging of rare terms about without their definitions is not admirable; not loving; not gracious.