The Rosary - What is Not Understood?

[PRmerger]

I don’t claim to be the end all be all authority that the RCC does, and would never presume to tread on the Holy Spirit’s turf. You have lists of books and the various cannons the different Churches accept. Have fun looking into the ones that made it or didn’t, or if you feel comfortable going with what the RCC calls cannon just because the RCC calls it cannon, then that’s fine too, I’m just not built that way.

But you do call the NT the inspired Word of God because…

you submit to some other authority, other than your own, which has told you that there are 27 theopneustos books that belong in the NT.

There is no other way for you to know, Kliska.

Despite your protests to the contrary.

As you have maintained that you applied “text crit” to the Epistle of James, could you please share with us what your criteria were? And which way did you decide? Is James truly, in your opinion, the Word of God?

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t claim to be the end all be all authority that the RCC does, and would never presume to tread on the Holy Spirit’s turf. You have lists of books and the various cannons the different Churches accept. Have fun looking into the ones that made it or didn’t, or if you feel comfortable going with what the RCC calls cannon just because the RCC calls it cannon, then that’s fine too, I’m just not built that way.

I thought I read in another post that you believed in absolute truth - so I took that to mean that you possess absolute truth in relation to the canon.

By the way - there are “cannons” and there is a “canon.” One is effective with gun powder, the other by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kliska]

I thought I read in another post that you believed in absolute truth - so I took that to mean that you possess absolute truth in relation to the canon.

What a strange, illogical leap you made there. As said in that post as well; Jesus is Truth and God is the final judge on truth.

By the way - there are “cannons” and there is a “canon.” One is effective with gun powder, the other by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I’m sure you’ve never ever misspelled a word in haste or had auto-correct think it knows better than you, my apologies for offending your sensibilities.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t claim to be the end all be all authority that the RCC does, and would never presume to tread on the Holy Spirit’s turf. You have lists of books and the various cannons the different Churches accept. Have fun looking into the ones that made it or didn’t, or if you feel comfortable going with what the RCC calls cannon** just because the RCC calls it cannon, then that’s fine too, I’m just not built that way**.

So you have a different NT canon then? One that you have discerned of your own independent study?

What did you use when you applied your “text crit” to James?

Can you please share the criteria you applied? And how does it include James (if it does) and also include 3 John (if you determined it to be theopneustos also) but exclude the Epistle of Barnabas (unless you have decided that it, too, is inspired??)

Stew’s question is a valid one. Could you share with all of us here what your NT canon is, since you’re “just not built that way” in submitting to any outside authority save your own independent study of ancient Christian literature?

 

[Kliska]

By the way - there are “cannons” and there is a “canon.” One is effective with gun powder, the other by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks to my mistake I think I may now realize there were indeed cannons of scripture, two of them, James and John, better nicknamed by the Lord “the sons of thunder,” but now less impressively nicknamed “the cannons of scripture” by me.

 

[stewstew03]

What a strange, illogical leap you made there. As said in that post as well; Jesus is Truth and God is the final judge on truth.
…

Illogical? How so?

 

[Kliska]

Illogical? How so?

You assume because I believe in absolute truth that therefore I claim some type of infallibility in and of myself? That isn’t a logical conclusion. I would assume you also believe in absolute truth and don’t believe you are infallible, is that an incorrect assumption on my part?

 

[stewstew03]

You assume because I believe in absolute truth that therefore I claim some type of infallibility in and of myself? That isn’t a logical conclusion. I would assume you also believe in absolute truth and don’t believe you are infallible, is that an incorrect assumption on my part?

Kliska, YOU made the leap from absolute truth to infallibility – not me.

All I asked was that you share your canon of scripture with those of us on CAF. Or is it your belief that such Truth should be withheld?

 

[Kliska]

Kliska, YOU made the leap from absolute truth to infallibility – not me.

I most assuredly did not, and I’d kindly thank you not to twist my words into rank heresy. God is the only infallible one, and we are led to truth by Him.

All I asked was that you share your canon of scripture with those of us on CAF. Or is it your belief that such Truth should be withheld?

Do your own research with study and prayer to see if you agree with the RCC canon of scripture or not. You could start by looking into Cardinal Cajetan’s thought on it if you want a RCC theologian’s ideas on what books belong.

 

[PRmerger]

I.Do your own research with study and prayer to see if you agree with the RCC canon of scripture or not.

Be very, very careful here, Kliska, and think about what you are advocating.

This means that the Christian world you espouse could be just what the devil ordered: a behemoth of denominations each claiming the authority to exclude one particular book from the bible, or to include all sorts of texts/epistles/books/writings…simply based on one’s “own research and study.”

Already there are individuals who claim that the Epistles of Paul are satanic.



This paradigm is just what the devil ordered, IMHO.

 

[Peter_J]

I haven’t every read it, but have read articles and heard the author interviewed. And, yes, to your first point, that is a very important statement.

Thanks, Kliska.

To put it another way, we respect the authority of our hierarchs, but that doesn’t make us automatons.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Were not automatons, I don’t believe I ever heard that argument. Does that suggest dissent?

 

[petra22]

Incidentally, “the process by which the canon was debated” was this: that which conformed to Sacred Tradition was included in the canon. That which reflected novel concepts was rejected.

As such, any talk of “the process” of discernment of the 27 book canon is also a tacit acknowledgement of one’s submission to Sacred Tradition.

It was Catholic men, Catholic bishops to be specific, who applied the nebulous “text crit” to the 400 texts, to discern whether they were proclaiming the kerygma,…

which they knew ONLY from Sacred Tradition.

And I bet they invoked the Holy Spirit that Jesus said he would send to help them discern… and I bet he was there with them ( where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them) and he also said he would never leave them. Did he lie? Was he a liar from the beginning? Or did he just become a liar after he died and rose again?

 

[PRmerger]

And I bet they invoked the Holy Spirit that Jesus said he would send to help them discern… and I bet he was there with them ( where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them) and he also said he would never leave them. Did he lie? Was he a liar from the beginning? Or did he just become a liar after he died and rose again?

 

[stewstew03]

I most assuredly did not, and I’d kindly thank you not to twist my words into rank heresy. God is the only infallible one, and we are led to truth by Him.

Oy vey… this is exhausting. I did not say that you personally claimed infallibility. I said you made the leap from “absolute truth” to “infallibility.” Paraphrased:

Me: “Kliska believes in absolute truth.”
Kliska: “I never said I was infallible!”

Do your own research with study and prayer to see if you agree with the RCC canon of scripture or not. You could start by looking into Cardinal Cajetan’s thought on it if you want a RCC theologian’s ideas on what books belong.

Kliska - I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I’ll just ask you point blank: do believers need a Church? Or do we just need a canon of scripture that we’ve discerned for ourselves to be True (with a capital ‘t’)?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Were not automatons, I don’t believe I ever heard that argument. Does that suggest dissent?

Were not automatons, I don’t believe I ever heard that argument. Does that suggest dissent?

 

[Peter_J]

Were not automatons, I don’t believe I ever heard that argument. Does that suggest dissent?

I hadn’t thought about it that way; but yes, I’ll bet there are some people to who “We’re not automatons” would suggest dissent.

 

[Kliska]

Oy vey… this is exhausting. I did not say that you personally claimed infallibility. I said you made the leap from “absolute truth” to “infallibility.” Paraphrased:

Me: “Kliska believes in absolute truth.”
Kliska: “I never said I was infallible!”

You said, “so I took that to mean that you possess absolute truth in relation to the canon.” That would be implying I claimed some type of infallibility when it comes to the canon, would it not? I did no such thing. It’s irrelevant to you what books I feel belong where, as it should be. I’m not the arbiter of truth.

Again, if the Roman Catholic’s in this thread want an example of a RC who did what I’m claiming, look to Cardinal Cajetan. Everyone seems shocked and amazed I’d suggest looking into the canon yourselves to see who you believe got it right, but Cajetan was a RC in good standing (I would hope) and that’s fine and dandy? BTW, he didn’t agree with the RCC’s canon on a personal level, but did bow to the RCC’s authority. Take someone like Luther, he did the same, but didn’t bow to the “authority” of the RCC, because he didn’t believe they had the authority that Cajetan believed. Hence, he was a reformer and Cajetan remained Roman Catholic. Thus it is today.

Kliska - I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I’ll just ask you point blank: do believers need a Church? Or do we just need a canon of scripture that we’ve discerned for ourselves to be True (with a capital ‘t’)?

We need Jesus who is Truth with a capital T, we need the Holy Spirit who leads us into Truth and truth. We become a part of the church by becoming a part of Jesus, not the other way around. The believers ARE the church. We are called to fellowship with other believers, for we make up the body of Jesus. We are not all we are called to be if not in fellowship with other believers, for we don’t all possess the same gifts. If you are asking me if it is possible to be saved without a fellowship of believers that gather together, the answer is yes; we can be saved as long as we know and trust Jesus.

 

[stewstew03]

… I’m not the arbiter of truth.

I think we can agree on this much.

We need Jesus who is Truth with a capital T, we need the Holy Spirit who leads us into Truth and truth…

How are disagreements settled under this paradigm?

We become a part of the church by becoming a part of Jesus, not the other way around. The believers ARE the church. We are called to fellowship with other believers, for we make up the body of Jesus. We are not all we are called to be if not in fellowship with other believers, for we don’t all possess the same gifts. If you are asking me if it is possible to be saved without a fellowship of believers that gather together, the answer is yes; we can be saved as long as we know and trust Jesus.

Is it your contention that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and Southern Baptists are all part of the same Church?

 

[Kliska]

I think we can agree on this much.

Your kindness shows through.

How are disagreements settled under this paradigm?

We work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to change minds and hearts; faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Some interpret properly, some don’t. I’ve been wrong before and been shown, have you?

Is it your contention that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and Southern Baptists are all part of the same Church?

No, is it yours?