To answer your question about a requirement - I don’t see a “requirement” for every believer to have one. What I do see from the writings of the apostles is the need to give congregations instructions, such as Paul did for the many congregations he visited during his missionary journeys. And I also see the need for Christians to grow in their understanding and faith. How will they do so? The masses I’ve been to did very little in the way of teaching God’s truth.
You’ve proven a very good point. The Church was hesitant to “allow” translations to be in the hands of the laypeople because they were afraid the laypeople would think for themselves and judge according to what they read in Scripture and maybe - just maybe disagree with them and leave the church. That would leave them without the financial support and prestige of being the only Christian church around. Sound like a good motive to be dishonest?
No one is afraid of anyone thinking for themselves. They are afraid of people, like Arius, Valentinus, Origen, Pelagius, et al, of corrupting the doctines of Christ and leading others astray. The Church is not a social club. People don’t stay in the Church for the perks. They stay in the Church because it is the authentic teacher of the Gospel. Furthermore, the Church isn’t interested in prestige, it is interested in the salvation of mankind, which is it’s primary responsibility.
Origen, Arius, Valentinus, Pelagius, and others proposed HERETICAL beliefs, and were condemned by the Church, which is within its purview of defending the Gospel. If you have no standard, than anything goes. Just look at Luther and Calvin. They were contemporaries and absolutely hated eachother, calling eachother a “son of the devil”. Yet each proclaimed his own right to develop doctrine based on this flawed “sola scriptura” theory. Have there been Catholic theologians that differed with the Church. Yes, and they have been corrected by proper church authority. If they refuse to accept admonishment, and their pet theories are harmful enough, they are denounced as heretics and put outside of the Church, just look at Tertullian.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_42.gif
And also with you.
People stay because they are afraid they will go to “hell” if they leave. They also stay because they don’t want to upset family members.
Are you going to take every syllable I type and try to twist it around to make me sound ridiculous? You are only harming your own credibility my friend. Have you ever heard of using exaggeration to make a point? Even Jesus did it. When He said “If your eye cause you to sin, pluck it out and throw it into the sea. Better to be in Heaven with one eye, than in Hell with both.” Do you think He really intended for people to stick a knife in their head and gouge out their eye when it tempts them to sin, and, of course, it has to be thrown into the sea, not a lake, or a river, or garbage dump. Has your eye or hand caused you to sin? Have you gouged them out or cut them off? If people were to take this literally, the Church would be filled with a bunch of blind cripples. Try to use a little common sense, please. Sheesh.
For one, I think the"presumption" is expected. It is expected that the source of Chick publications is strongest from the Baptists, Fundamentalists, and those in Reformed or Calvinist communities.
Good, and fair, post. Amen
I’ve heard similar phrases for six months, my friend. And they weren’t joking or exaggerating. I only quoted what you said. I wish you no harm and did not intend to make you look stupid in any way. If this was offensive to you in some way, I apologize.
One should not presume. To do so encourages misunderstanding and hostility. I listen to Christ when I read what He had to say. There is no “matching game” in my Bible. This is not from God. In Paul’s day some were saying, “I am of Apollos”, “I am of Cephas”, or “I am of Paul”. With God there are no denominations.
Sure I did Michael, in post #50. The bible wasn’t spoken in average Joe language. It was spoken in middle eastern languages in a totally different time and culture from which we are more than 2000 years removed. It was translated into other languages and from those other languages into English. We can’t read the bible as though it was composed in 21st century American English, yet many do and believe it’s a perfectly acceptable and logical way in which to read it.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That person is you. If there is no other infallible source other than scripture then scripture, and nothing else, should be used to support your claim, not your personal opinion that there is no other infallible source.
You’re right, it’s not hard when one is one’s own authority for interpreting the bible. The bible simply means whatever I believe it means. What could be easier?
You are not understanding or you are dodging. Let me clarity. God had the Scriptures written in koine Greek. This was the common Greek of the day as the word “koine” suggests. Why did God have the Scriptures written in the common tongue, if it was not intended for the common people of that day. Why not write it in angelic language so that the “common” man would get the point that he was not to try to interpret it?Sure I did Michael, in post #50. The bible wasn’t spoken in average Joe language. It was spoken in middle eastern languages in a totally different time and culture from which we are more than 2000 years removed. It was translated into other languages and from those other languages into English. We can’t read the bible as though it was composed in 21st century American English, yet many do and believe it’s a perfectly acceptable and logical way in which to read it.
In Christ,
Nancy
Greetings to you Michael,