B
benhur
Guest
You both have decided and both have belief’s. If Christ puts it to us plainly to decide on whom He is (“Whom do men say that I am ?”), with eternity in the balance, should He not ask us smaller things ?
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
Disagree with your either or paradigm. The role of scripture has always been the same OT or NT. It is quite authoritative and all say tradition can not contradict her.
E
edkw55
Guest
…and I do believe, in making a decision of such importance, that Jesus fully intended it to be a torturous and painful journey, for anyone who truly loves Him as do I and desire above all else to be obedient to Him.
In His grace.
Ed
E
edkw55
Guest
E
edkw55
Guest
A comment like this is undeserving of a response.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Not at all.
Perhaps you would be so good as to point out which statements you’re talking about, and what YOU think they mean.
It should. Facts should sway …
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
I, for one, believe you.
It was very hard for me, even though I was a “cradel Catholic” who was, in all practicality, non-Catholic for a stretch of time, to let go of my pride and “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17).
I’m praying that you have success in this painful search for truth, even though you have to let go of your personal, fallible, preconceptions.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Imagine that … wanting ALL the truth. Why, that’s just radical!!
Yet, the “reformers” pinned much of the idea of sola scriptura on the very idea you’re ridiculing here: the perspicuity of scripture.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
What “either/or”??
Within Judaism and Catholicism, yes. Not so with protestantism.
True enough. But what YOU say are contradictions are, in fact, protestant misunderstandings (based mostly on eisegesis) of what scripture says.
B
benhur
Guest
Thank you . Some think SS is taking your bible and curling up in a ball contentedly with no other interaction, no other influences to prioritize…Blessings, and I am encouraged by your stand.
E
edkw55
Guest
This has nothing to do with my pride.
All stands or falls on whether or not the answer to the following question is true or false:
The Church that Jesus established is the present day Roman Catholic Church.
If the answer is true?..as you said “Obey your leaders and submit to them” & “let go of your personal, fallible, preconceptions” and we could go on and on for sure.
If the answer is false?..Is it even necessary that I explain the obvious???
B
benhur
Guest
“ALL” the truth like the bible does not say it is error free, nor authoritative, nor God breathed ?..Where are you Radical ?Imagine that … wanting ALL the truth. Why, that’s just radical!!
Lost me here. What am i ridiculing ? Either or paradigm between Church and bible, or a post saying the bible doesn’t say it is authoritative, God breathed or error free ?
E
edkw55
Guest
At this point in time my answer to this question is a rock solid “false” in spite of my feeling so powerfully drawn to the Roman Catholic Church.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
I’ll freely admit that it is not.
Oh, it is, organically the very same Church. But it has, in fact, developed.
Much as the mustard seed is “different” from the mustard tree, and yet organically the same.
Jesus told us this very fact using this very same analogy.
Well, perhaps you should consider the implications of that answer.
If the Catholic Church is NOT organically the same Church, then at some point we’ve had Christ’s promises fail.
Therefore, Christ would be a false prophet.
Therefore, Christ and His Church are bound together. Both, or neither. As He intended. The head and the body; the groom and the bride.
E
edkw55
Guest
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
The Bible doesn’t say this about itself … it’s the Church that says this about the 73 books of the Bible.
Joh 5:31 If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true;
Oh, is that what you meant by either/or?
Please show me where anyone presented that.
You had posted:
Hanging out in a garage does not turn you into a car, and reading the bible a thousand times does not make you one with it in understanding.
… which I took to mean that just reading the Bible isn’t enough to understand it. In other words, the Bible is NOT perspicuous, which is the Catholic position, and must therefore be interpreted. Which then presents us with the question: who has the authority to rightly interpret the Bible? Apostolic Tradition tells us that the Magisterium has this Authority, and the Bible witnesses to this belief. See, for instance, 1Ti 3:15.
E
edkw55
Guest
Take care benhur. Me thinks we is going round and round in circles here. I am out of here.
Ed
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
See, here’s one thing that should be understood:
At some point in time, the command to “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (which BTW was intended to mean SPIRITUAL leaders, i.e., Church-appointed leaders) had to be true, correct?
When did it become UNTRUE?
According to protestants, it became untrue when they decided that the Church’s interpretation of scripture was incorrect. So, **they **individually broke that Biblical command.
And now, 500 years later, we have people posing the question you have. Just remember, though, that those who originally split, whenever you think it occurred, had to have broken that biblical command.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi benhur: You are correct in that hanging out in a garage does not turn one into a car, and yes one can read the Bible a thousand times without really understanding it. That being said, in order to start understanding something one first has need of some type of schooling and without other disciplines like history, literary forms like poetry and other types of speech. In searching out the intention of the sacred writers one must among other things have regard for the literary forms that was used and expressed in variety of ways depending on the text being read. Also one should remember that with few exceptions, the authors of the New and Old Testament did not think of themselves as inspired writers of Scripture.
Israel came to recognize Scripture’s special authority even though nowhere in the Old Testament is a book said t be inspired by God. What the Old Testament contains is Israel’ belief that God revealed Himself in history and that history was guided by God’s Spirit. The writers of the Old Testament teach that the “Breath of God” came upon Moses, the Judges, Saul, David the prophets etc. These specially chosen people wit the help of God’s Spirit, interpreted Israel’s history. It is not Scripture that claims be have authority but those who have come to recognize That it is from this belief that the scribes deduced that the same Spirit of God was with the sacred authors when they wrote their book. it was the presence of God’s Spirit that gave Scripture its authoritative character.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Fatherknowsbest: I agree with you. I would like to add this: The fact of inspiration is one thing; the nature of it, or how it works is another. Early Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, borrowed biblical language when they called Scripture “holy writings” “sacred books”, or “the divine word.” However, some of the learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church such as Ambrose and Augustine, went a step further and began to say tat God was the author of Sacred Scripture. So it is not Scripture that make any claims but those who have come to recognize God in history and His Spirit that have inspired those writers of Scripture. Thanks.
- Status