S
SempirVeritas
Guest
I am at least a “seeker” thats the best way i can describe myself… i regularly visit these forums to predominately separate what the Church teaches from what protestants say the church teaches, and even though i was a protestant- puritan to be precise- but i have been struggling a lot with the logical implications of various “tenants, foundational concepts, and implications” of both sides of the Christian coin. im hoping one of you smarty pants types can help me out and through my theological quagmire. at anyrate here we go:
someone refrenced a nice phrase, to the effect of " If I may use a principle of statutory construction: expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Those which are expressly mentioned exclude those which are not"
this is a clever phrase, especially when protestants use it (ive heard them use it perhaps more pointedly then it was used in this particular forum). there are so many things
in the average “christian” life that fail the above test…if we are to exclude what isnt expresely mentioned, then we should exclude trinity. (at best its coneptually present but not necessarily clearly prounounced, and of course the term isnt there either)
there should be no instruments or hymn books, or xmas, or easter since none of these were present in the synagougal worship system clearly favored by the apostles in the book of acts and there is no command saying “thou shalt sing 3.4 songs, pray 4.5 min, talk about the phrase “but god” for 45 min, have a choir special, a drama presentation, etc etc” then they are necessarily EXCLUDED from corporate worship. and
any usage of them makes said church as “heretical, apostate, or whathave you” as the catholic church.we could even draw into question the entire canon from Genesis to revelation, as obstensibly the Torah of course was recieved directly from God to millions of witnesses. however nowhere in the Torah
is there a list of what prophets will make it into the canon, and which wont…
WCF i think: VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
and we are to insterpret all things in accordance with their plain, given context and plain meanings of the original tounges, then chrstiainity in anyform- even arianism, gnosticism fails completely
for the NT is full of partial quotes of the TNK or OT as some call it, and when doing plain simple studies of said passages, that passage clearly can not refer to anything or anyone
except the person to whom the original passage was written about and how the original hearers would of plainly understood.
there must be a physically present body which at worst when push comes to shove- has sole interpretive authority… lets face it, in the TNK if you are accused of a capital offence
you were tried by court. the very mention of a court trial means the defendant could be found innocent, it also means all withness and judges etc have to meet other Torah requirements
for failure to have proper witnesses- the whole case is thrown out- mistrial.
and there are very clear refrences to “when ever their is a dispute amongst you” go to the elders of the city, and what they decide is to be obeyed otherwise you incur the wrath of God
just as much as you would if you disobeyed a non contreversial command- for instance beastiality. hence if there is the ability to “Aggre to disagree” it is extremely limited in scope
and would be best categorized as “exception to the rule” hence any attempt to make the exception the rule should incur the wrath of God in this life or the next.
so then the question then becomes- who has interpretive authority- either the Rabbis do. or the Church(referring to RC) does.
How do we - weighing both options- logically arrive at what is likely Gods intent, or “Gods group” to make a cheesy phrase.
On one hand, (and im not judging motives here) it would seem that outside of the 12 apostles and after the temple was destroyed, we had a huge influx of former pagans, who before conversion and even after it for a time
had little or no knowledge of the ONE TRUE GOD, NOR Gods WORD, NOR Gods people. but were isntead used to thinking for a long portion of their lives in pagan terms, where “whatever floats your boat goes” applies
as clearly whenever someone in the OT tried to do “whatever floats their boat” they incured wrath…
and on the other hand, (and im not judging motives here) it would seem the pharisees were heavily steeped in Torah study, heavily steeped in the history of Gods dealings with Gods people, etc etc
so at first glance it would seem this group would be the more logical and “safe” group to listen too.?
perhaps someone can see where im going and shine a light or 2 and help me through the tunnel? I know my Bible- not perfectly but i read it daily in a variety of translations, making use of various lexicons and so forth
so this is more a “philosiphy/history” quest than a “what does the bible say”
someone refrenced a nice phrase, to the effect of " If I may use a principle of statutory construction: expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Those which are expressly mentioned exclude those which are not"
this is a clever phrase, especially when protestants use it (ive heard them use it perhaps more pointedly then it was used in this particular forum). there are so many things
in the average “christian” life that fail the above test…if we are to exclude what isnt expresely mentioned, then we should exclude trinity. (at best its coneptually present but not necessarily clearly prounounced, and of course the term isnt there either)
there should be no instruments or hymn books, or xmas, or easter since none of these were present in the synagougal worship system clearly favored by the apostles in the book of acts and there is no command saying “thou shalt sing 3.4 songs, pray 4.5 min, talk about the phrase “but god” for 45 min, have a choir special, a drama presentation, etc etc” then they are necessarily EXCLUDED from corporate worship. and
any usage of them makes said church as “heretical, apostate, or whathave you” as the catholic church.we could even draw into question the entire canon from Genesis to revelation, as obstensibly the Torah of course was recieved directly from God to millions of witnesses. however nowhere in the Torah
is there a list of what prophets will make it into the canon, and which wont…
synthesis: if said phrase is true, then protestant worship- even that of the puritans- is still false fire.
If Sola scriptura is true, being defined thusly.WCF i think: VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
and we are to insterpret all things in accordance with their plain, given context and plain meanings of the original tounges, then chrstiainity in anyform- even arianism, gnosticism fails completely
for the NT is full of partial quotes of the TNK or OT as some call it, and when doing plain simple studies of said passages, that passage clearly can not refer to anything or anyone
except the person to whom the original passage was written about and how the original hearers would of plainly understood.
synthesis: for christianity to be true- even the forms that the majority would consider heretical- SS can not be true.
Ultimately these 2 issues tie into the same thing.there must be a physically present body which at worst when push comes to shove- has sole interpretive authority… lets face it, in the TNK if you are accused of a capital offence
you were tried by court. the very mention of a court trial means the defendant could be found innocent, it also means all withness and judges etc have to meet other Torah requirements
for failure to have proper witnesses- the whole case is thrown out- mistrial.
and there are very clear refrences to “when ever their is a dispute amongst you” go to the elders of the city, and what they decide is to be obeyed otherwise you incur the wrath of God
just as much as you would if you disobeyed a non contreversial command- for instance beastiality. hence if there is the ability to “Aggre to disagree” it is extremely limited in scope
and would be best categorized as “exception to the rule” hence any attempt to make the exception the rule should incur the wrath of God in this life or the next.
so then the question then becomes- who has interpretive authority- either the Rabbis do. or the Church(referring to RC) does.
How do we - weighing both options- logically arrive at what is likely Gods intent, or “Gods group” to make a cheesy phrase.
On one hand, (and im not judging motives here) it would seem that outside of the 12 apostles and after the temple was destroyed, we had a huge influx of former pagans, who before conversion and even after it for a time
had little or no knowledge of the ONE TRUE GOD, NOR Gods WORD, NOR Gods people. but were isntead used to thinking for a long portion of their lives in pagan terms, where “whatever floats your boat goes” applies
as clearly whenever someone in the OT tried to do “whatever floats their boat” they incured wrath…
and on the other hand, (and im not judging motives here) it would seem the pharisees were heavily steeped in Torah study, heavily steeped in the history of Gods dealings with Gods people, etc etc
so at first glance it would seem this group would be the more logical and “safe” group to listen too.?
perhaps someone can see where im going and shine a light or 2 and help me through the tunnel? I know my Bible- not perfectly but i read it daily in a variety of translations, making use of various lexicons and so forth
so this is more a “philosiphy/history” quest than a “what does the bible say”
