Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PREDESTINATION; LIVE BY GRACE; NOT BY WORKS (WEEK 8)
St. Louis Center for Christian Study ^ | Greg Johnson

Posted on 11/13/2006 11:01:10 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800801-837 last
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Did you read in post #11 on that thread? --

I sure did. I also noted that the author of the KJV comment also said it was accepted Catholic teaching that Jonah was just a metaphor. I KNOW that we weren't told that as a fact on the L&E thread. If that guy was right, I wonder how many other whole books of the Bible are completely thrown out as myth under accepted Catholic teaching. If they can toss the vast majority of the KJV, then it could be up to all of them. That is, except the Deuterocanonicals of course. :)

801 posted on 11/30/2006 5:22:51 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan
3. Which came first, believing or salvation? From God's POV, salvation. From man's POV, believing.

The text of the story calls this answer into question. Paul's response is:

Acts 16: 29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."

The scripture uses the future tense to describe the sequence between believing and salvation. In short, it appears to be saying, "Believe and AFTERWARDS you WILL BE saved."

I'm not asking what you believe at this point. I'm simply asking if you can see how, based on this text, a general reader could come to the conclusion that believing precedes salvation?

802 posted on 11/30/2006 5:37:23 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
The Holy Spirit only talks to your men on important issues.

Where does the Catechism say that? No where.

Since the Spirit "could" communicate with all believers, as we believe, but chooses not to, as you believe, then He turns His back on them.

Where does the Catechism say that the Spirit chooses not to communicate with all believers? Again, no where You are leaping from the *authoritative* interpretation being found in the Magisterium to the Holy Spirit not communicating to laity. That is, a non sequitur.

So, I take it then that the Spirit guides the laity with inauthentic and unauthoritative interpretation.

The laity are led by the Spirit, and the Spirit typically works through the Church. But the "interpretations" reached by the laity themselves, are not authoritative.

Face it, that kind of leadership is useless.

That statement is an example of why you need such leadership. You're trying to use pragmaticism to determine how the Church should be structured. Naaman wouldn't have washed in the Jordan if he had been a pragmatist.

In part, the Spirit only ministers based on class. There are the kings of the Magisterium, whom the Spirit has time for, and then there are the rest of the serfs, whom the Spirit does not have time for,

That's a straw man. And, you sound like an ecclesiastical anarchist.

Where else can one get the true meaning of scripture according to #100?

There is no where else you can go to be sure that the meaning you are getting is the "true meaning". But that does not mean that you cannot get the true meaning just by opening your Bible and starting to read.

-A8

803 posted on 11/30/2006 6:21:31 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Forest Keeper
It's my understanding that Marcion was considered the most dangerous of heretics. And I think it was because his disavowal and rejection of the Old Testament so threatened the survival of the New. And that makes a lot of sense to me. If it's impossible for Jonah to have been in the belly of the whale, then it's just as impossible for the Incarnation and the Resurrection to be true. All need to be taken on Faith. Science will verify or confirm none of them. In fact, it will certainly deny them all. "Logic" will see to that. Sts. Peter and Paul who were given the deposit of the Faith whole and sound would consider denial of the truth of OT as accursed.

Insofar as the KJV and the imprimatur is concerned. That horse left the barn centuries ago. They can disapprove all they want: here's a Euro boys, call someone who cares. No person whose Being is being moved by the Holy Spirit will say as soon as they sit down to read the Scriptures, say, I need to call Rome to see if they're 'down with this' translation. They need to get real.

I'm pretty sure that during the Council of Trent the powers that were, reverted to the translation of St. Jerome -that sainted, but mean old coot- not because it was the best translation out there, but because it best suited their myopic needs. Luther's red-hot polemic aside, he really was a conciliarist and when the Council of Trent was finally convened, so much had happened that he said it was too late.

I do think that schisms are God's way of protecting His Remnant. The primary schism between the O&RC laid the egg that hatched the rest, IMO. That schism took place between two entities that consider themselves the 'true church', yet it doesn't seem to me that they really do share the same faith, and the massaging of terms and conditions will heal nothing, because truth is not subject to nostalgia or necessary alliances, to say nothing of politics. Union based on anything other than Truth will produce

The falcon [that]cannot hear the falconer;
Things [will] fall apart; the center cannot hold
.
The church can't be as was once said of England, that it has no eternal friends, just eternal interests.
804 posted on 11/30/2006 8:52:10 AM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan
I'm not asking what you believe at this point. I'm simply asking if you can see how, based on this text, a general reader could come to the conclusion that believing precedes salvation?

Sure. Since the Bible was written for people it's only natural that much of it is from man's POV.

805 posted on 11/30/2006 12:36:48 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
also said it was accepted Catholic teaching that Jonah was just a metaphor

More rubbish. Where in any official Catholic document does it say that Jonah was a mere metaphor?

I'm getting the impression that this is the Protestant version of National Enquirer. Just one unsubstantiated rumor and lie after another. -A8

806 posted on 11/30/2006 1:39:21 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
I suppose I doubt that Paul would have needed to study his own letters the way we need to study them today. I'm not sure where you're going.

I am not sure that you can be certain on this statement. You said in your post #787, "Paul certainly knew about predestination and election." While Paul certainly knew about predestination and election, he did not necessarily have a better understanding than we have today.

My wife and I memorized Ephesians about twenty years ago. At that time I did not pay much attention to "predestination." Likewise when I did Romans I didn't even notice "election." It is not until you are challenged on a particular point that you begin to pay attention.

Did Paul know that he was writing scripture? (I suspect he did) and if he did know, did he realize that he was writing way over his head?

807 posted on 11/30/2006 4:42:24 PM PST by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Forest Keeper
More rubbish. Where in any official Catholic document does it say that Jonah was a mere metaphor?

It's a shame that you didn't spend any time on the Luther/Erasmus thread. It's all there. One of the things we find about Catholics is the consistency about the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

808 posted on 11/30/2006 5:29:13 PM PST by HarleyD (Mat 19:11 "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
It's a shame that you didn't spend any time on the Luther/Erasmus thread. It's all there.

Uninformed Catholics will say anything. What matters is what the Church officially teaches, not what some rogue self-styled theologians think. And if you want to know the official Church teaching, you have to look at official documents. Don't just believe whatever you hear, and then repeat it. Demand that it be substantiated in official Church documents. Where in any official Catholic document does it say that Jonah was a mere metaphor?

-A8

809 posted on 11/30/2006 5:37:05 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg
More rubbish. Where in any official Catholic document does it say that Jonah was a mere metaphor?

Well, 100% of the rubbish to which you refer was authored by a Catholic (see post 11 of Dr. E.'s link in her 781). As Harley mentioned, the three of us (and everyone) got a lot of this type of stuff over on the L&E thread. Your lashing out at Protestants is completely misdirected. Your argument isn't with us on this, it's with your own.

It is not at all surprising to us that individual Catholics would contradict each other with regularity. How can individual Roman Catholics be expected to be consistent, when the declarations of their governing body are so inconsistent with scripture? It is to be expected that the fidelity an average Catholic will have to the actual scriptures versus the fidelity he has to the past and present Magisterium will vary.

Be that as it may, we have also been told that the Magisterium has not in fact ruled on EVERY issue concerning the faith. We have been told that good Catholics may indeed disagree on this or that issue, if it has not already been decided for you. You appear to argue against that notion. You appear to be saying that any opinion of a Catholic, such as what I and Dr. E. cited, is automatically "rubbish" (or better yet a Protestant slur when we only report it) if it has not been officially sanctioned by the RCC. Is this really your view? If so, then you have no view on a vast array of subjects, unless you really want to attempt to tell me that the RCC has already ruled on everything.

810 posted on 11/30/2006 7:32:00 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Just as I suspected. The link to which you referred nowhere says that Jonah was a mere metaphor.

I am getting more and more amazed at the sloppliness at the way you handle positions that differ from your own. You just read into them what you want to see.

-A8

811 posted on 11/30/2006 7:53:47 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
You appear to argue against that notion.

Where?

-A8

812 posted on 11/30/2006 7:55:05 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
You appear to be saying that any opinion of a Catholic, such as what I and Dr. E. cited, is automatically "rubbish"

I never said that any opinion of a Catholic is rubbish. But, it is quite possible that every lay-Catholic opinion that you and Dr. E. have cited is indeed rubbish.

-A8

813 posted on 11/30/2006 7:56:49 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Among Catholics there is room for freedom of opinion on various issues, of course. But you seem to want to use the expression of some of those opinions (the ones with which you disagree) as a way of bashing the Catholic Church. "Hey, look at what unbiblical notion the Catholic Church teaches!" When, in fact, there is no official document teaching the particular claim in question.

-A8

814 posted on 11/30/2006 8:00:18 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Forest Keeper; HarleyD
Just as I suspected. The link to which you referred nowhere says that Jonah was a mere metaphor.

This is the link to which FK refers...

BIBLE & CATECHISM

From the link...

"So, when you read a bible make certain it is one with an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. This will insure that the cover-to-cover contents, including teaching footnotes and introductions explaining the scriptures, are accurate teachings approved by Holy Church. For example, The New American Bible - St. Joseph Edition says in The Book of Jonah that Jonah disobeyed the Lord so he was swallowed by a whale for three days before being disgorged and sent on his mission. In the introduction to the Book of Jonah, the censor tells us that this 'story' is a sublime lesson telling us that, "Jonah stands for a narrow and vindictive mentality, all too common of the Jews of that period".6 With the previous explanation in mind concerning the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, we know that the introduction just quoted about the Book of Jonah is an approved and accepted teaching of the Church. In the situation of Jonah being swallowed by a whale, this is a 'story' used to teach about the mentality of the Jews at that time.

815 posted on 11/30/2006 11:24:40 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; adiaireton8; Dr. Eckleburg
Your lashing out at Protestants is completely misdirected. Your argument isn't with us on this, it's with your own.

Amen. I see no correction of Catholics by other Catholics on such matters. One would think that Catholics who would see other Catholics wandering from the fold would point them to the doctrinal stanze of the Church. Oops...perhaps that's the problem. ;O)

816 posted on 12/01/2006 1:27:30 AM PST by HarleyD (Mat 19:11 "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
I am not sure that you can be certain on this statement. You said in your post #787, "Paul certainly knew about predestination and election." While Paul certainly knew about predestination and election, he did not necessarily have a better understanding than we have today.

Well, I would respectfully disagree because Paul wrote about predestination and election, and he was an inspired author of God. Therefore, I would give him credit for knowing more than any person around today on those subjects. As inspired, we consider Paul's writings "perfect" and not subject to being improved upon over the ages.

It is not until you are challenged on a particular point that you begin to pay attention.

Amen, and good for you and your wife for your memorization. I have memorized long passages before, but not a whole book. I agree with you that memorization, while always good, does not necessarily mean full comprehension. As I continue to learn today, I revisit old memorized passages and discover further meaning.

Did Paul know that he was writing scripture? (I suspect he did) and if he did know, did he realize that he was writing way over his head?

The first question is comparatively easy for me to address, and agree with you, that Paul knew he was writing scripture. Peter acknowledges that Paul's writings were scripture in 2 Pet. 3:14-16. So, if Peter knew ......

The second part was much harder for me and I went around and around about it. My conclusion was that to the extent that scriptures are comprehensible by man, Paul knew more about what he wrote than anyone since. He was an inspired author, and if Paul's own writings were above his head then who could have understood them? If no one, then the purpose of the Bible would be thwarted as the revealed word of God.

At the same time, I don't think Paul would have claimed to have had an equal understanding of all scriptures, for then he would have had no potential left for growth himself. But, I think this is OK, since the revelation to and the witness of each author in scripture is unique. Each author wrote what the author witnessed, either through experience or through revelation.

817 posted on 12/01/2006 1:40:25 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Those underlined sentences are true. But they don't say that Jonah is a mere metaphor.

-A8

818 posted on 12/01/2006 2:25:56 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
I am getting more and more amazed at the sloppliness at the way you handle positions that differ from your own. You just read into them what you want to see.

Forgive me, in the future I will try to heed your words and be less "slopply". :)

What Dr. E. so very kindly posted in her 815 was EXACTLY and PRECISELY what I was referring to. The Catholic author of the comment put the word "story" in quotes TWICE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU? I'm sorry for shouting, but what can't you see about this? It is obvious and plain as day. The author even explains the metaphor. There is nothing to miss.

If you think I'm making this up, then honestly what do you see from the quote in 815?

819 posted on 12/01/2006 3:05:22 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
The story of Jonah is a story. Every story is a story. But that does not mean that the story of Jonah is a mere metaphor, or that the story did not actually take place. The story of Jonah has symbolic meaning that goes beyond the literal account. But that does not imply that the actual account is false or never occurred, or that the Catholic Church officially teaches that the Jonah story never occurred.

-A8

820 posted on 12/01/2006 3:12:23 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg
FK: "We have been told that good Catholics may indeed disagree on this or that issue, if it has not already been decided for you. You appear to argue against that notion."

Where?

Many of your recent posts tell me this. For example, from your post 809 to Harley:

Uninformed Catholics will say anything. What matters is what the Church officially teaches, not what some rogue self-styled theologians think. And if you want to know the official Church teaching, you have to look at official documents. Don't just believe whatever you hear, and then repeat it. Demand that it be substantiated in official Church documents.

I take from this a very negative attitude toward Catholics who offer opinions on material not already judged by the Church. You use words like "uniformed" and "rogue" and "self-styled". You appear to indicate that the only views of any value are those handed to you by the Church. Your earlier posts match this attitude. Therefore, I took your view to be that the good Catholic will stick to what has been handed down, and not delve into individual opinion on anything else, lest he be "uninformed", etc. or worse.

821 posted on 12/01/2006 3:38:04 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
Among Catholics there is room for freedom of opinion on various issues, of course.

[re: recent posts:] I am fine with accepting that, but it does appear to be a change.

But you seem to want to use the expression of some of those opinions (the ones with which you disagree) as a way of bashing the Catholic Church.

No, no, no. :) In my 801, I specifically said "IF that guy was right ...". I also said it didn't match what we Reformers had been told by other Catholics. I was criticizing the inconsistency, GIVEN THAT, among the top attacks we Reformers enjoy from our Catholic friends is that there are a million different denominations of Protestantism, and therefore there is no cohesiveness. We believe those attacks to be very erroneous and unfair. It should therefore be no surprise that we take notice when it appears there is disunity among Catholics.

822 posted on 12/01/2006 4:04:04 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
I take from this a very negative attitude toward Catholics who offer opinions on material not already judged by the Church.

Not true.

You appear to indicate that the only views of any value are those handed to you by the Church.

Not true.

Therefore, I took your view to be that the good Catholic will stick to what has been handed down, and not delve into individual opinion on anything else, lest he be "uninformed", etc. or worse.

On matters concerning which the Sacred Magisterium has spoken authoritatively, a good Catholic will stick to what the Sacred Magisterium has determined. That does not mean that on other matters there is no room for individual opinion.

-A8

823 posted on 12/01/2006 5:28:03 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
but it does appear to be a change.

It is not a change.

It should therefore be no surprise that we take notice when it appears there is disunity among Catholics.

The difference is that you're not in full communion with all Protestants, while Catholics who disagree with each other are in full communion with one another. In other words, Protestantism is not one Church.

-A8

824 posted on 12/01/2006 5:31:15 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Forest Keeper; HarleyD; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings
If you read the link in post #815, you will see the author is discussing Catholic doctrine. The piece is titled, "Bible & Catechism."

The author is clearly explaining his view that the episode with Jonah and the whale is a "story," not an actual event. This is further shown by the very next paragraph which states...

"There are a number of different forms used to write various books of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. They are The Parable, The Allegory, The Beast Fable, The Short Story and the Historical Novel, The Problem Story and The Speech as a Literary Device....If you are like me and do not have the background to determine which literary form was used to write some part of the Bible you are reading, contact a scripture expert for your diocese and ask him. Once your question is answered you can quickly determine if what you are reading is a literal truth such as Jesus miraculously feeding the 5,000 or a story or Parable told to teach us a truth."

As you can easily read, the author puts "literal truth" in opposition to "a story or Parable."

Even without the help of a "scripture expert," any reader can understand that the author is excluding the Biblical telling of Jonah and the whale from "literal truth."

825 posted on 12/01/2006 9:16:22 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Forest Keeper; HarleyD; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan
Additionally, it seems really fascinating that the author and apparently Catholic catechism has gone to the trouble of dissecting Scripture into "The Parable, The Allegory, The Beast Fable, The Short Story and the Historical Novel, The Problem Story and The Speech as a Literary Device..."

Almost as if they wanted to make reading the Bible seem difficult and confusing. Almost as if they wanted to make sure people didn't tackle the Bible on their own, but instead used a "Scripture expert" to instruct them, rather than the Holy Spirit who promises to lead us in truth.

"For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" -- 1 Thessalonians 1:5

826 posted on 12/01/2006 9:49:29 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
As you can easily read, the author puts "literal truth" in opposition to "a story or Parable."

First, your assumption is that if one takes an account as a "story or a narrative", then necessarily it must not have actually happened . But that conclusion does not follow. Second, that paragraph does not say that the Jonah account is a mere story or mere metaphor.

-A8

827 posted on 12/01/2006 10:52:26 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; 1000 silverlings; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; AlbionGirl
that paragraph does not say that the Jonah account is a mere story or mere metaphor

I'm beginning to think you just take the opposite side in a discussion for fun and don't bother to read the material under discussion. In the link from which the paragraph is drawn...

In the introduction to the Book of Jonah, the censor tells us that this 'story' is a sublime lesson telling us that, "Jonah stands for a narrow and vindictive mentality, all too common of the Jews of that period."

This identification of "story" is given after the author delineates the many rhetorical ploys in Scripture as declared by the Magisterium.

This is getting humorous, A8. I would bet most Catholics readily agree that Jonah and the whale is allegory.

For me, I can accept both.

But your insistence that some part of the catechism says what it does not say and does not say what it says is very interesting.

Perhaps you need a "scripture expert."

828 posted on 12/01/2006 5:06:50 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I'm beginning to think you just take the opposite side in a discussion for fun and don't bother to read the material under discussion.

That's an ad hominem.

This identification of "story" is given after the author delineates the many rhetorical ploys in Scripture as declared by the Magisterium.

I agree, but that does not mean that the story of Jonah did not actually occur.

I would bet most Catholics readily agree that Jonah and the whale is allegory.

What "most Catholics" think is irrelevant. Perhaps you forget that the Catholic Church is not a democracy.

For me, I can accept both.

Me too.

But your insistence that some part of the catechism says what it does not say and does not say what it says is very interesting.

I have never insisted that the Catechism says something that it does not say, or denied that it says something it does in fact say.

Perhaps you need a "scripture expert."

That's just an ad hominem.

-A8

829 posted on 12/01/2006 5:18:59 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
The second part was much harder for me and I went around and around about it. My conclusion was that to the extent that scriptures are comprehensible by man, Paul knew more about what he wrote than anyone since. He was an inspired author,

Paul is not the Author.

and if Paul's own writings were above his head then who could have understood them? If no one, then the purpose of the Bible would be thwarted as the revealed word of God.

Paul told us that scripture is inspired. Is there evidence of this? I believe that there is. There are things in the Bible that men could not have put there. It is Paul’s letters that take us into the sanctuary. Could he have known that his fourteen letters would be the Leviticus of the New Testament?

Of course Paul was writing over his head and I think he knew it. He referred to himself as “less than the least of all saints.” I am not being sarcastic here, but I suggest that this is what happens to us when we stand in awe before our creator.

I have found that the more I study the Bible, the bigger it gets. Please don’t take me wrong; I think that Paul had a great understanding. Have you considered how your arguments would apply to Old Testament scripture writers?

830 posted on 12/02/2006 1:03:32 AM PST by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
(I just told A8 this on another post, but we just got our power back after the ice storms yesterday morning, so that's where I've been for the last 30 hours or so. Temp. got down to 46 in the house this morning. Pretty cold. :)

The story of Jonah is a story. Every story is a story. But that does not mean that the story of Jonah is a mere metaphor, or that the story did not actually take place.

I agree, but clearly the Catholic author of the quote we are referring to does not agree. He put the word "story" in quotes twice. The context was clear that his intent was that the word not be taken literally. As further proof, he explained the metaphor and what the 'story' of Jonah actually stood for. Again, I don't think your real argument is with us.

831 posted on 12/02/2006 2:31:39 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
The difference is that you're not in full communion with all Protestants, while Catholics who disagree with each other are in full communion with one another. In other words, Protestantism is not one Church.

Apostolics are also not in communion. Besides, no one has ever said that there is "one Church of Protestantism". However, among Protestants who are also true believers, all of us belong to the "one true Church of God", the same as you. Some Catholics belong to this Church, and some do not. It is the same with Protestants.

832 posted on 12/02/2006 3:00:17 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; adiaireton8; HarleyD; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan
Additionally, it seems really fascinating that the author and apparently Catholic catechism has gone to the trouble of dissecting Scripture into "The Parable, The Allegory, The Beast Fable, The Short Story and the Historical Novel, The Problem Story and The Speech as a Literary Device..."

Excellent point Dr. E. Who could discern such a thing. Oh wait, I know I know. :) OTOH, the Bible seems to say something completely different:

John 20:31 : But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Rom 15:4 : For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

1 John 5:13 : I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

It appears there is a curious lack of reference to having all these writings first filtered through an all powerful hierarchy.

833 posted on 12/02/2006 9:03:47 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
Paul is not the Author.

??? Paul was not the ultimate author, but the words did move through his brain and hands. I don't think he was "zombified" while writing and had no idea what he wrote after he performed the task. He was a scribe for God, but not a blind one.

Paul told us that scripture is inspired. Is there evidence of this? I believe that there is.

I fully agree.

Could he have known that his fourteen letters would be the Leviticus of the New Testament?

I don't know if Paul had specific knowledge of the makeup of what would become our Bible, but it does seem clear that Paul understood, in all humility, that he had been uniquely touched by God for His ministry. He was personally mentored by Christ.

I have found that the more I study the Bible, the bigger it gets. Please don’t take me wrong; I think that Paul had a great understanding. Have you considered how your arguments would apply to Old Testament scripture writers?

I agree that none of us will have a full understanding of the Bible during life, and I think Paul would have agreed about himself. However, what it sounds like you are suggesting is that there are incomprehensible truths in the Bible that will never be known by anyone. I don't know what purpose that would serve. As far as the OT writers, I think they had a belief in the Christ to come. That Christ later amplified their writings doesn't take anything away from them in their understanding at the time. Put it this way, if Paul came back now and read the whole Bible, and then in referring to other scriptures, which of his writings do you think he would have slapped his forehead over and said "so THAT's what I meant" :)

OTOH, you could be right, I admit I am not certain about this.

834 posted on 12/02/2006 11:05:23 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
but it does seem clear that Paul understood, in all humility, that he had been uniquely touched by God for His ministry. He was personally mentored by Christ.

I don’t believe that Paul is unique in that. We are all personally uniquely mentored by Christ.

what it sounds like you are suggesting is that there are incomprehensible truths in the Bible that will never be known by anyone.

I don’t think that “incomprehensible is the right word here. We have not yet found all of the gold that God put in this Earth. So it is that scripture has not yet yielded up all of her treasure. It is not that we cannot understand it, but rather that God has given such a bounty that we cannot contain it.

As far as the OT writers, I think they had a belief in the Christ to come.

I agree. When it comes to the Old Testament characters, I will switch side on this issue. I think men like Abraham could have had comparable understanding to Paul, even without access to the scriptures. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” I also think we have access to the same level of understanding today.

I see two competing features here. Sin like leaven will continue to spread until the whole is leavened. As the darkness increases, God is adding light so that the contrast remains the same. First God gave types, then scriptures, now he is adding knowledge. As men get older, their eyes don’t see as well. So it is with mankind.

OTOH, you could be right, I admit I am not certain about this.

835 posted on 12/03/2006 12:04:10 AM PST by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
I don’t believe that Paul is unique in that. We are all personally uniquely mentored by Christ.

I certainly agree that we are all individually mentored by Christ. I was thinking of the passage in Galatians:

Gal. 1:11-12, 15-18a : 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any human source, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. ... 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem ....

I've just always taken this to mean that Paul's "hearing" of the word was different from the rest of us. It seems like he really was locked in a closet alone with God.

We have not yet found all of the gold that God put in this Earth. So it is that scripture has not yet yielded up all of her treasure. It is not that we cannot understand it, but rather that God has given such a bounty that we cannot contain it.

That sounds reasonable to me. I do not think any one person (among us humans during life) probably ever has or probably ever will completely "get it" when it comes to all scripture.

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” I also think we have access to the same level of understanding today.

Good quote. I can't argue with "access" because you and I will know and have the exact understanding of any issue that God wants us to have, up to and including the level of an OT writer or an Apostle. However, and not that you suggested it, I would struggle with the idea of me potentially having a "better" understanding than a writer on "his subject", even if based on other scripture that I have and he didn't. Anyway, I think you cut to the chase. We will know what God wants us to know, regardless.

836 posted on 12/03/2006 6:38:40 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

VErdugo — what you do think of this?


837 posted on 03/29/2011 6:25:54 AM PDT by Cronos (Palin: 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800801-837 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson