Posted on 08/23/2011 4:34:15 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
Well, yeah, but everyone has to do that. It's not like we have a choice in the matter, but we're also told to test the spirits to see if they are from God or not so where's the rub?
“I’ll bet it’s amusing for Israeli Jews to hear a Jew from Alabama speak Hebrew with a Southern accent”
Honestly, I can’t identify any American accents spoken in Hebrew, except Brooklyn.
No native English speaker even gets the “Ch” correct.
Yes, to use an very imperfect anology (and one that unfortunatley throws race into the discussion), picture a woman that was raped repeatedly by a series of black men.
Now, years later, she’s skitish around normal black men who are perfectly fine and never did anything to her. Indeed, she’s scared of black men who are there to help her.
Well, that’s unfair to those normal black men, but we can all understand why she might be afraid of them.
Unfair, discriminatory even, but understandable, is the position we are in.
Testing the spirit is anot always easy. The Devil is a master at laying down false trails.
No arguments there, but it's still something that has to be done.
Now granted, sometimes it's fairly difficult because what that spirit is telling you is so close to the truth, but God did give us a guide for doing this and if the spirit is telling us something that contradicts what Scripture teaches, no matter how good it sounds otherwise, we can be sure that spirit is not of God. Scripture is always the key to knowing if something has been sent by God or not, it's just a matter of knowing Scripture well enough to know the difference, hence the command to study to show ourselves approved.
Now we get to the nitty gritty. Yes, Scripture is the basis of our faith, but Scripture requires interpretation. We Catholics say that the dogmas and doctrines of Christianity are just interpretation of Scripture. We also say that an individual who picks up Scripture is entering into a difficult process, and ought not to forget that Christians have been reading Scripture for two thousand years. Unfortunately, they real Scripture —the same Scripture—differently. So which do you choose? Which answer to the test is the right one?
I know what you're angling towards here, but I disagree with the idea that Sacred Tradition holds more weight than Scripture and here's why. Sacred Tradition, although good and not to be despised if it's in accord with Scripture, is still just fallible man's interpretation of Scripture, even though those men often were trained directly by the Apostles themselves. They may have received the very best tutelage possible on the subject of the Scriptures and Doctrine, but they were still not the Apostles and therefore not subject to even the limits of infallibility that they enjoyed.
Scripture itself always interprets other portions of Scripture, which is to say that no two portions of Scripture which are in relation to a single subject will contradict each other. They may compliment each other and they may even seem to be contradictory at first glance, but in reality Scripture will always be in agreement with other Scripture when it comes to Holy Doctrine, as it is literally God's Word agreeing with itself. If two portions of Scripture seem to contradict each other, then an error on the reader's part has occurred and the reader must return to the beginning of his study to examine where the error is located. While the thoughts of other Christians on a subject are always welcome, the command to be as the Bereans is always in effect so we are expected to receive these teachings with gladness but to search the Scriptures to see that these things are so.
The keystone to all this, naturally enough, is the idea that God is Sovereign in all things and therefore able to ensure that His Word was transmitted to us faithfully and in full. Now, this cannot be said for all translations, so it must be understood that this is only completely true in the original autographs and in the original languages, which necessitates that the serious student of God's Word must be willing to put forth the effort to ensure that the copy he or she is using is as close to those original autographs as possible and even then, when it's not possible to have the very best translation, the weaknesses of that translation must be known so as to eliminate, if possible, any unintentional translation errors which may lead to a corruption of doctrine.
I believe that should get you started, but if you wish for further explanation, just ask. I'll gladly expound upon any position that I hold.
What you propose is to set one kind of hermagenics against another, the Reformation tradition against the Catholic/Orthodox tradition. At bottom you set a minimalist role of Church against the maximal role. At the same time, we ought not to avoid looking the new way of looking at Scripture that is opposed to both Geneva and Trent: the liberal or modernist view. Both Calvin and the Fathers at Trent were Augustinians; the modernists are Pelagians.
As for looking at a new way to understand Scripture, I stand on the premise that while it is possible that a doctrine may surface, or more correctly resurface, that is at odds with either accepted Catholic/Orthodox or Protestant doctrines, I am wary of such events in the extreme and remember that we are commanded to reject any doctrine which does not conform to the rest of Scripture, even if that doctrine is delivered by an Angel. In such a case, those espousing these views do not get the benefit of the doubt that I would extend to other Brothers and Sisters in Christ and must provide hard, solid Scriptural support for their ideas before I will consider them anything but heretics.
To the point, I consider those who challenge St. Augustin's teachings on Original Sin, whether Pelagians in the traditional sense or modernists, to be heretics and unworthy of fellowship. Augustin's views on the subject have been tried, tested and found to be true and in line with Scripture. The modernist view has also been previously tried, under the guise of Pelagianism, and have been found to be heretical. In this matter, I stand side by side with my Catholic and Orthodox Brothers and Sisters in rejecting this doctrine.
WE?
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Oh?
Why not?
What's Christ 'doing' now to further it?
Either your name is written in the Lamb's book of Life or it isn't.
I find nothing to suggest that 'your first name is written but your last name may take a while' in Scripture.
Yes, as sadly reflected in posts 140-151, most of the Nazis were very much Christians, and the Nazis were not shy about co-opting not only Christian religous symbols, but Christian relgious doctrines.
Rank-and-file Nazis were primarily Lutheran, Roman Catholic, but also evangelical.
They twisted Christian doctrine (as did Martin Luther before them) to support the genocide.
Indeed, Martin Luther (as noted upthread) was the original author of the “Final Solution.”
I encourage you to read the above posts and study the pictures.
It makes me profoundly ill that this horror was done in the name of my savior, Jesus Christ.
Apologies, it’s post 83 and on where the photos and links start.
No problem.
You are, of course, about the rank and file Nazi troops.
Then, as now, many ‘christians’ will follow the state instead of what Christ would have them do.
No problem.
You are, of course, right about the rank and file Nazi troops.
Then, as now, many ‘christians’ will follow the state instead of what Christ would have them do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.