Posted on 01/18/2002 6:11:04 AM PST by 1stFreedom
Excellent.
The Old Testatment and the New, both show in much detail how God operated through personalities, some that even wanted to be far away from God, and some who wanted to sell God's gift of prophecy for money.
I think it should be understood that God in giving examples of performing His work through some humans, of unsavory character, was able to get what He wanted done. He would have no problem whatsoever in using unsavory men to put together the Bible into a letter to mankind. Hope this helps your understanding and lightens your heart over being able to trust God's letter to you.
>>This tactic of defining your position as the only reasonable one is, in my experience, used by college sophomores who are trying to learn how to think and the far left..
I do not define it as the only conclusion. For instance, one could argue that "true, the Church wasn't in error THEN, but in 550ad it did fade into apostasy."
Also, when I mean is that a reasonable person won't resort to the "WORD OF GOD" circular argument, but rather at least consider my position. Resorting to the "WORD OF GOD" and the "SPIRIT CONFIRMS IT [the canon]" to me argument is not a reasonable position to hold when trying to convince another. You can't reason with someone once they resort to this argument
>>If you want to join the anti-Catholic league I suggest that you learn to get a little deeper in your own thinking.
Uh, I'm a Catholic my friend.
The apostolic faith provides the believer with direct and intimate access to God. It's a mystery to me why anyone would swap this for an arm's-length intermediary.
Dan
To a Roman Catholic, it would mean nothing — until some man told him what he was required to believe that it meant.
Dan
Some of the most vociferous Catholic bashers claim to be themselves Catholic...kind of like that expression "self-hating Jew". But, I'll take your word for it that your intentions are good.
Excellent.
With that said...please explain how you know that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark?!
My point is how can you trust the canon? It's too easy to say the Spirit Confirmed it. The "spirit" confirms many things -- and often times the "spirit" is the conscience of one's own beliefs and ideas, not the Holy Spirit. (I can't say whether or not the Spirit has actually confirmed it too you, and you can't convince [most] people that It has either. You can only convince/believe yourself, and only you and God know the truth.)
>>I think it should be understood that God in giving examples of performing His work through some humans, of unsavory character, was able to get what He wanted done.
I'm not debating that. And it's not the same argument. God didn't exactly use unsavory characters to define His scriptures. Unsavory characters were used, such as Pilot and Judas. But the Church isn't an unsavory character (although many of it's members are).
The unsavory Characters that God entrusted had repented and walked a new path. You could trust them, but would you trust Judas or Pilot, both used by God? An argument could be made from your statement that the [apostate] Church could be trusted here and there, but was basically untrustworthy as a whole.
>>He would have no problem whatsoever in using unsavory men to put together the Bible into a letter to mankind.
I would suspect that some of then men who participated in the recognition of the canon were in fact unsavory. The men themselves aren't the issue. The state of the Church is the issue here. And I don't think anyone can argue that the early Church was an unsavory character.
Just teasing you as I mark this for follow-up. Should be entertaining if the opening volleys are any indication.
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.