Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
P.S. Sorry for any previous imprecision.
It matters very much and is exactly our issue. Does it come from God or is it man-made?
You keep trying to make it the issue, but it isn't. I am talking of the real thing, the real Truth, the real Faith, the real $20 bill. If we have the Faith, does it matter if we got it exclusively in an individual one-on-one God to man way, or if we got it through the work of the Church?
Remember, Quester said "right or wrong" it is "not acceptable" if we obtain faith through reliance on others. Which means even if we are right and have a good faith, we will be rejected by God becuase of how we got it. I think the important thing is to have faith, not how we got it.
SD
But if I wind up with the real thing, is it still "not acceptable?"
Wouldn't it be wise to examine what you have obtained and personally discern whether or not you have the real thing ?
Of course. No one is talking blind allegiance here.
It may, very well, turn out that what your friend has given you is valid, but it never hurts to check with the final authority.
You have an infallible way of doing this?
SD
BigMack
God, the ultimate author and finisher of our faith, entreats us to ask Him to provide us with His wisdom (i.e. His truth), and promises to honor such requests by (infallibly) providing such wisdom to us.James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Sure.
And let's say me and a woman were stranded. We both could read the Bible and scheive salvation. And if nature followed its course, we'd have a child.
We would teach the child about God.
We wouldn't just teach him to read.
SD
Becky
I know you believe that. But no matter how you slice it there is a fallible man in the equation. I don't see why God communicating directly to me is suppposed to automatically be more correct than God communicating to me through other men.
I would rather check what I think Scripture means against what other Christians, past and present think it means. Than the other way around.
SD
Yes. But how does that address whether that wisdom is delivered personally and individually, or whether it comes through the institution He founded for the purpose of transmitting his Good News?
Also, are you saying that whenever you ask God a question, you get an infallible answer?
SD
Thank you.
We would teach the child about God.
We wouldn't just teach him to read.
But you first read about God to learn about Him, and then would pass that along with his/her reading also.
Being alone with just the Bible will/can bring to to salvation, and that my friend is the whole point, we can know from the word only and depend on our personal understanding. Will we get every thing right? No earthly church does, not mine not yours.
But we can come to a saving knowledge with the Bible alone.
BigMack
I had a thought here. The thing is, Catholics believe that the church is infallible in matters of faith, including, presumably, the correct interpretation of scripture. So Catholics believe that by relying on what the church teaches, they are getting "The Truth". From the Protestant perspective, the church and its leaders are just as fallible as Joe Bibleguy down the street. So (again from the Protestant perspective), when a Catholic believes the church's interpretation, they are getting a second-hand understanding of scripture from someone who is just as fallible as they are. To the Protestant, you are better off reading the scripture yourself, studying it firsthand.
Just because somethign is possible doesn't mean it is probable, or even desired.
Suppose this man on a desert island found a copy of the Bible and thought it a very strange type of novel?
The bottom line here is that you limit yourself to the Bible alone, despite the proof that God went out of His way to establish a Church to teach the Gospel.
SD
Correct. You'll notice that in my example, all of the Protestants immediately warn me about "counterfeit" money. Simply put, a Catholic view is predicated on the Church having the Truth, and the Protestant view, like you said, is that anyone's view is just as likely to be right or wrong as their own.
Given that predicate, I too would more likely trust myself. But even then, there is the conservative idea of giving respect to the thoughts of those before us, so I don't think I'd be quick to shuck tradition.
SD
BigMack
There is a saying in Reconstructionist Jewish thought that "the past has a vote, but not a veto". This is probably the way most Protestants function in practice. The island example is a hypothetical; none of us learns in complete isolation.
Did you mean to say "you discern infallibly the answer?" I hope we can all agree that God, Himself, is infallible.
Only if we can understand it. If the Bible on the island is written in German and I understand only English, could I be saved by it?
It's understanding what is in there and accepting it that saves us, not the reading of it. The heart of Dave's point, I believe, is that the Church is Christ's own chosen method for conveying what is "in" the Bible.
Did you mean to say "you discern infallibly the answer?" I hope we can all agree that God, Himself, is infallible.
God no more gives out wrong answers than He does "deliver us into temptation." Thanks for the correction. :-)
SD
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.