RS: "I think it is you who claims that the Bible "contains" the Word of God."
Really? Quote me (exact thread reference and reply #) or apologize for misrepresenting what I "claim".
My comment in #276 should be one of your clues about what I claim: "Neo-orthodox Arminians do believe that the Bible merely "contains" the Word of God --- but that it isn't the infallible Word of God, so what you believe doesn't surprise me."
In #275 you wrote: "I believe that the words recorded in the Bible ___and attributed to Our Lord___ are divine".
First: It must be determined _which bible_ you are talking about. Is it "The Word of God" in print, (also known as "The Bible" - a publication that is preeminent in authoritativeness) composed of 66 books?
Secondly: If so, then it must be determined if you are saying that there are some words (contained therein) that are divine but there are some others (as implied in your statement above) that aren't divine.
If it is indeed your claim that the 66 books that make up "The Bible" contains some truth and some error, then you ARE saying (along with all neo-orthodox Arminians) that "The Bible _contains_ the Word of God", but that the whole Bible isn't "The Infallible Word of God".
You also wrote: "You don't say how the Word speaks to you."
I didn't??? Here again I will ask you to quote me (exact thread reference and reply #'s). If you can't do that, then apologize for misrepresenting what I "say".
You may begin your search here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo cus/religion/704064/posts?page =33#33
When you go there you will find __just the opposite__ of what *you say* I *don't* say.
You also wrote: "You say that the Word of God is limited to what is found on the pages of a book."
Unless you can provide the exact thread reference and reply # where I said any such thing, you need to apologize for misrepresenting what I "say".
In #261 and elsewhere in this thread, you will PLEASE NOTE EXACTLY WHAT I DID SAY. *I said* that within the closed canon of Scripture God saw to it that (excerpted): "..we have everything we need to know about the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and its meaning for the lives of believers for all time."
You seem to have problems with reading comprehension / perception, so from now on, if you want to make statements about what I "say", what I "claim", or what I "believe", you must use my own words by quoting me with thread reference and reply #.
Here is more of what "I say" on the matter of the closed canon of Scripture, and you may only _quote me_ as I quote and paraphrase these excerpts:
"If we would stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, we must adhere to the principle that in matters of religion and morals the Scriptures alone have authority to bind the conscience [Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, vol. I, pp. 182?3]."
"In addition to the over-emphasis that Rome placed on tradition and church hierarchy in interpreting the scriptures ---
the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura also set itself against this notion [of Rome] of the Bible as a _magical_ wisdom book."
"The Reformation reminded the church that __Scripture's primary purpose is to point people to Christ, to tell his story of redemption, and to provide general guidance for Christian life and faith ---
--- rather than to serve as a sourcebook of proof-texts that can help individual Christians settle the *daily details* [minutia] of their lives. [As a "Master" (dictator) trying to lord it over his "brethren" would use it (see reply #33 in this thread)].
The Westminster Confession's first chapter, on Scripture, was framed in a historical context that involved two controversies. Against the papists, the Westminster divines affirmed that Scripture itself, without any papal additions, sufficiently governs the church.
Against the enthusiasts [today known as Pentecostals], they affirmed that Scripture itself, without any additions from private revelation, sufficiently governs the church.
WCF 1:6 alludes to this historical context: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men".
The issue expressly addressed was not whether Scripture was sufficient to govern creatures in every creaturely task, apart from the light of nature or wisdom; the issue was whether there was any "counsel of God" regarding "faith and life" that would be found other than in Scripture.
What the Assembly meant by "faith and life" in WCF 1:6. Did they mean that everything the creature needs to fulfill his created calling and mandate would be found in Scripture?
Did they mean that we could exercise dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and the creeping things merely by reading Scripture? Would they have discouraged biologists peering through microscopes, or ornithologists inspecting hawks' nests, on the ground that everything necessary to fulfill the mandate to exercise dominion could be found in Scripture?
To raise these questions is to answer them.
The divines did not mean by "life" everything needed to sustain, improve, or nourish human existence, whether in its biological or social senses. They meant what their Shorter Catechism says about Scripture's teaching -- that it principally teaches "what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man." God's revelation regarding what we are to believe about him ("faith") and about what duty he requires of us ("life") is to be found in Scripture alone, apart from any additions of tradition or private revelation.
Many other matters, useful in our quest to exercise dominion over the created order and to frame productive societies, will only be discovered by what the divines called "the light of nature."
Confessionally, we affirm both the existence of such natural light and its necessity for properly ordering our lives. We affirm that the Creator has given us "light" not merely, not exclusively, and not sufficiently for all tasks in Scripture; he has also given us "light" in the natural order he created.
Many other matters, useful in our quest to sustain and nourish human life and existence, will only be discovered from the natural order or by the additional sources of a multitude of counselors, the counsel of older/wiser people, etc. We will not cure cancer (the cure to which is necessary for biological "life") by reading the scriptures; we will cure it by investigating molecular biology, organic chemistry, and other related disciplines.
"Nevertheless, we acknowledge . . . that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1:6).
Excerpted and paraphrased from:
http://www.modernreformation.o rg/
I am not participating on this thread and would like to be removed from the bump list. Thanks.
Based upon your statements in this thread misrepresenting what I claim or what I say --- your *perceptions* about things don't carry much weight with me.
I noticed that you totally ignored my pointed questions in #284 that would have pinned down exactly what *you* believe about "The Bible" (the 66 books that comprise the closed canon of Scripture).
I perceive that you have a problem with being clear about what *you believe* regarding the infallibility of the whole Bible. Is that a wrong perception?
The Bible is an historical "given." I reject the fundamentalist notion that it was dictated by God in the sense that Muslims believe that the Koran was dictated by God to Mohammed. I do not believe the Christianity is a "Religion of the Book,"like Orthodox Judaism or Islam. The Bible is the record or witness of God's people to God's self-revelation. It is they--the Jews and later the Church--who guarantee its authenticity. If one does not belong to that faith, one cannot know with an assurance what God's word is.
It may be my machine. The first two didn't open after repeated attempts. The third one opened. To a ton of reading, but it opened.
The Liturgy, for one. Fasts and feasts were a part of Judaism that the Apostles carried over. Not sure what you mean by Liturgy. Do you mean Mass? Which fasts and feasts, besides the Lord's Supper, do you mean. I don't recall any others.
Yes, there are some in the Roman Catholic Church that carry the veneration too far, but that isn't any worse than those who chose to ignore her completely.
In what way to others ignore her completely? What veneration does she need? Besides being the mother of Jesus, what is so special about her? Was she not a sinner like you and I?
The Eastern Church never sold indulgences so we are in agreement about that.
Excellent. However, Stephen the first Martyr was remembered by the faithful from the time of his death. Veneration of the Saints is verification of our belief that those who follow Christ have eternal life. Protestants always tell us the Saints are just dead people, but we know them to be alive in Christ.
All those who saved are alive in Christ. Stephan no more than you or I needed Jesus to save us. There have been many faithful men and women who have died proclaiming Jesus on their lips, are they any more special than Stephan or other martyrs? Should we not instead of praising those, praise God who gave them their strength. I see an opening to praise others instead of God when we venerate these saints.
And, oh yes, infant baptism! Origen wrote of that being the practice in only the 2nd Century. There was never any Biblical or Traditional mention of withholding a child from the Body of Christ until some man-made determination about an "age of reason!" Jesus said to let the children come to Him and we obey!
What does infant baptism do for the infant? The church that I attend practices infant baptism so I don't have a problem with it per se, but I would depending on what you think it does for the infant.