Right. I agree. We can support all Christ’s commandments from the content of Scripture. That is my point. And even that Traditions from the Apostles, yet not explicit in Scripture, were necessary to follow Jesus’ commandments accurately.
Lol…maybe me too
He is saying that some of the passages are difficult to understand and can get twisted. How does that NOT demonstrate the need for accurate interpretation of what was written?
I lik your answer of what to do when the writer/interpreter gives you something difficult…you basically say stick to it, God will help a humble heart.
the context is not that one needs an interpreter, but for sure it has been received properly by the church at large (universal), that indeed it can be understood and is understood by those Peter is writing to. I do not want to say that an apostles words need interpretation at the time of reception(by whom , another apostle, or elders appointed by the same apostle ?)
We definitely need to be leary of assuming any individual member of the Church is giving us the absolute Truth about any given matter.guanophore:
I lik your answer of what to do when the writer/interpreter gives you something difficult…you basically say stick to it, God will help a humble heart.
I think it is not that the writing is not straightforward or could be written better, but that when we understand it, it is still difficult to fathom… as an example , i understand the churches and writs teaching on hell , but it is very difficult to fathom the full import of such a reality (so much so, that I must be careful and stay the course when some unruly teacher comes telling me of an easier doctrine of hell, of which there a few floating around).
He didnt wait 3 yrs to go to Ananias and receive instructions, did he?rcwitness:
How do you know why he went to see Peter? And why did he wait 3 years? Paul seems pretty clear that what he preached was from revelation from Jesus and not of human origin.
Absolutely, I finally see your point. Yes, he is referencing persons to whom it was not addressed, or those who did not receive the teaching connected to it who are twisting the meaning for their own ends. I think this reinforces the need for the writing to be understood from the point of view of the community for which, and in which it was produced.
I think that Paul received a great deal of instruction from the Church, as well as through revelation.
They created their denominations based upon the Pope being the antichrist!
The only ones that did were those who accepted the possibility of martyrdom. They then became “protestant.”susanlo:
He didnt wait 3 yrs to go to Ananias and receive instructions, did he?rcwitness:
How do you know why he went to see Peter? And why did he wait 3 years? Paul seems pretty clear that what he preached was from revelation from Jesus and not of human origin.
I believe Paul went to see Peter because he knew, by revelation, that communion with Peter was necessary. And he knew that Peter would be obligated to speak the Truth of the Gospel. He also knew that it would be the most productive way to show the whole Church of his true Apostleship. Go to the head, and then you are able to tell all others of his approval.
I agree that je did not receive any of his Gospel from men. He did receive the Holy Spirit, Baptism, and the Lord’s blessing through the Church however. Paul was humble in seeking God’s blessing through the Church.
What Protestant, who felt compelled to preach and claim to be called by Jesus would go visit the Pope and lay out his conviction? Or even the local Bishop?
From what I read on this post and on the “bashing Luther” post the Pope of Luther’s time and other Popes in history were anti-Christ. Just not THE Anti-Christ.rcwitness:
I think that Paul received a great deal of instruction from the Church, as well as through revelation.
They created their denominations based upon the Pope being the antichrist!
Corinthians 13
I am not understanding why you are presenting this verse.Wannano:
Corinthians 13
If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Thank you and amen…the only other thing that could be said is that of course there is always a third party, the Holy Spirit, who not only inspires the the writer to write, but for the reader to read the intent/meaning.
how do the bishops confirm? Is that in council ? Can a pope speak/decree in ex cathedra apart from communion of bishops ?
was there anything “systematic” beyond the twelve, before writ? What is the gospel exactly ? How did the church first start ? How do we know anything about a virgin birth, a crucifixion or a resurrection Pentecost today? The original systematic guides/apostles are long gone. What is the best systematic way to know these things beyond a shadow of a doubt today? What is the closest thing we have to capture their oral teaching (the supreme authority, that is , their oral teaching, at the time) ? And who gave us such a way ? And is the giver now more powerful than that which they give ?
Technically speaking he could, but he would not, unless the majority of bishops fell into heresy. This was the case during the Arian controversy, but not since that time. There was only a small minority of bishops that retained the teaching of the Apostles regarding the hyposatic union. Athanasius was the champion of God, who restored the Church to the truth.
The New Testament is not “systematic”. It was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.
That is what is contained fully in the Sacred tradition and the sacred Scripture.
Indeed!
???..i think not
No but He had it written as a rule of law, as an extension of the apostles, as an extension of the Word of God…yes a wonderful, authoritative thing…like having Jesus or an apostle right in our midst, or like us going back in time, as if we were right there.