Posted on 12/08/2011 2:01:52 PM PST by OneVike
I understand the Bible far better than you know. I just don’t happen to interpret like you do.
I’m thankful that you are not God. You don’t exactly show the fruits of the spirit in your postings.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Galatians 5:22-23
Worry about your own salvation, and I will worry about mine.
C.S. Lewis comments on the dangers of spiritual pride:
“One is sometimes (not often) glad not to be a great thelogian; one might so easily mistake it for being a good Christian. The temptations to which a great philologist or a great chemist is exposed are trivial in comparison. When the subject is sacred, proud and clever men may come to think that the outsiders who don’t know it are not merely inferior to them in skill but lower in God’s eyes; as the priests said (John 7, 49), ‘All that rabble who are not experts in the Torah are accursed.’ And as this pride increases, the ‘subject’ or study which confers such privilege will grow more and more complicated, the list of things forbidden will increase, till to get through a single day without supposed sin becomes like an elaborate step-dance, and this horrible network breeds self-righteousness in some and haunting anxiety in others. Meanwhile the ‘weightier matters of the Law’, righteousness itself, shrinks into insignificance under this vast overgrowth, so that the legalists strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” [emphasis mine]
Funny you should cite this, it reads like a brief synopsis of Protestant Reformer objections to the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century.
“I will argue that even if we lost the Bible completely, Christianity would remain undefeated.” I would change that to “could remain undefeated” but that current culture would say that Christianity would be shaken at the least...look at the churches that stopped preaching from the Scriptures and see how many people are coming to the Lord through their efforts.
“First, it is entirely possible that Christianity's message could have been communicated verbally-and only verbally-forever.” But it was not communicated only verbally...Peter, Paul, John, and others wrote it down as inspire by God. See 1 Timothy 4:11-13 and 2 Timothy 3:14-17
“What would you do, if you had no Bible, and you met a stranger. You would use your memory of what you learned from reading the word, which is understandable.”
This statement would line up with 2 Timothy 3:14-17 but it assumes that I had the Scriptures to start with so that I could study them and then share them verbally...but if I did not have the Scriptures then what would I be sharing...something that somebody else shared with me when they did not have the Scriptures...sounds like an opportunity for a game of “telephone”...not the best way to share information over long time periods. So God had them write things down.
“Think of a scenario that would put you in a place without the Bible, and you could not give it or read from it to reach others. Are you saying you could not save that individual?” I could not save the individual even with a Bible. My job is to prepare the soil, plant seed, water, and maybe harvest...only God can cause the increase. (sometimes even despite my failings)
“Hey editor, my friend is a good Christian. However, as a professor of apologetics, he finds himself doing these sort of mental gymnastics to sharpen his ability to fight the good fight and to reach the Dawkins of the world.”
After observing Dawkins several times I really do not think that a change in approach is what is needed to reach him. I had a brother-in-law that was very much like Dawkins...same line of work as well...and we would debate over science, theology, philosophy, etc., until I realized that he just was not ready to here the Truth. That is when I stopped trying to “reach” him but instead started to pray “God, do what ever it takes to reach him, so that he does not spend eternity without You.” God heard that prayer and during a very painful battle with cancer he became ready to here the Truth...and the Truth set him free. He has now left this earth and is finding out the reality of the Truth that he learned about at the end of his life.
For my conclusion, like I said before, the article starts with the wrong assumption “what if”, “entirely possible”, etc. Could God keep His Church in good health without the Scripture...sure, if He wanted to...but Scripture tells us that He chose to use the written word so I do believe that we need the Scriptures to remain healthy as followers of Christ.
Some of the Protestant “Reformers” gripes about corruption in the Catholic Church in the early 16th century was warranted, but they threw the baby out with the bathwater in their revolution.
Only Luther didn’t aim to start a new religion. The others did.
It appears to me that the opposite is true, that the hierarchy stiffened and overreacted, then cemented all the bad doctrine at Trent in order to differentiate themselves, thereby creating a new religion. They’ve been adding to it ever since, Mariology, primarily. Mid-1800’s saw the immaculate conception become doctrine. 1950’s saw the bodily assumption of Mary become doctrine. It now appears to be as much Marian as Christian, to those Christians who do not belong to that church.
I thought you’d claimed to be Eastern Orthodox several weeks ago, when you signed up. Aren’t there points of strong disagreement there, as well? Did Rome found a new religion when it split off from the east? The Orthodox strike me as having remained more true to the early church than Rome, honestly, your efforts at apologeticw here on FR notwithstanding.
They’ve been adding to it ever since, Mariology, primarily. Mid-1800’s saw the immaculate conception become doctrine. 1950’s saw the bodily assumption of Mary become doctrine. It now appears to be as much Marian as Christian, to those Christians who do not belong to that church.
I thought you’d claimed to be Eastern Orthodox several weeks ago, when you signed up. Aren’t there points of strong disagreement there, as well? Did Rome found a new religion when it split off from the east?
>>I’m an Eastern Catholic, which means that I adhere to the tenets of Eastern Orthodoxy and am in union with the Pope of Rome within the confines of the faith of the First Millenium.
The Roman West and the Byzantine East were always different due to culture and language. Protestants have far more in common with Roman Catholics than they do with Eastern Christians because we don’t accept St. Augustine or St. Anselm of Canterbury’s interpretation of what Christ did on the cross.
We aren’t legalistic. In fact, we reject legalism.
I’ll add that the Orthodox accept the Feast of the Assumption and have for well over 1,000 years. To us, the Immaculate Conception is really irrelevant because we don’t accept St. Augustine’s interpretation of Original Sin.
To a degree, you are right when the Latin Church responded to the Protestant Revolution by over-centralizing its authority. My Melkite Church rejected Vatican I, and our patriarch thumbed his nose at papal infallibility and had the Pope stomp on his head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_II_Youssef
I don’t believe Rome started a new religion, but it found a way to calcify the old one.
Had the Reformantion simply been about reforming the behavior of the clergy and curtailing some of the abuses that arose due to the lack of clerical education, it would have been celebrated by Catholics alike.
There are points of disagreement between Rome and the East, but they boil down to matters of semantics and politics. But progress has been made since Pope Benedict was elected Pope.
Eastern Christians reject speculative theology.
The Melkite Patriarch is second only to the Pope in the Catholic hierarchy, and our patriarchs have not hesitated to tell the Popes off when they overplayed their hands.
All this to say that my views have changed and, I trust, matured over the years, as I have known and worked with those from different theological traditions.
Although I eschew many of the prideful and even arrogant attitudes of some Fundamentalists, I am careful not to, as you point out in one of your posts (with regard to the Protestant Reformers rejecting Catholicism), "throw out the baby with the bathwater."
It is true that some denominations tend to attract the obstinate, who believe their particular sect has the only Truth. However, in every church I have attended I have seen good, humble Christians who maintain a godly faith despite the structural flaws of their particular church.
Thus I am careful not to "paint all with the same brush," but rather continue to be amazed at how God has His people in many different churches. All the best as you serve Him.
You should be - I’d flip you off the earth. How’s that, troll?
>>I’m not going to trade insults with you. I don’t oppose God’s word.
It’s sad to see you are filled with so much hate. You better keep the BBQ sauce ready just in case.
If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20
I’ve known many fine Evangelicals over the years, but I leave it up to God to judge their souls. I’m not qualified to do so, nor is anyone else on this board.
Pharisee. You don’t know the first thing about the Holy Spirit. Maybe Beelzebub, but not the Holy Spirit.
Your distance from God is great, and it appears to be totally by choice.
You are projecting troll - considering how you hate God’s Holy Spirit inspired Word and rather bow to man-made teachings as your final authority.
>>Projecting? I love the Bible. The Biblical canon is a man-made teaching.:)
I am filled with The HOLY SPIRIT.
>>You might be filled with a spirit, but it seems just a tad darker. If you were filled with the Holy Spirit, you wouldn’t be seeking malice.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.” Matthew 23:27
“And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” 2 Corinthians 11:14
I don’t picture God or Jesus NEEDING St. John “the devine”, or the book of revelations. Moreover I have no reason to believe that God is in the business of writing or selling books. I’ve never seen him at Borders or Barnes/Noble signing copies of the Bible.
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.