|
Post by Pietro on Mar 25, 2004 15:37:11 GMT -5
What is "The Church"? Scott Good question. I think of it as the fellowship of believers. But then beliefs diverge. Would gnostics be included? Arians? Theosophists? Mormans? Jehovah Witnesses? That is why I think we need a creed, the councils, a tradition of teaching authority and a common faith to assent to.
|
|
|
Post by masarap on Mar 26, 2004 9:34:06 GMT -5
That is why I think we need a creed, the councils, a tradition of teaching authority and a common faith to assent to. Pietro, I agree in part and all is found in the Word of God. Ultimately all of the above mentioned "religious cults" depart from the Word of God by not NOT standing in agreement by their creeds and teaching authority.
The Word is the "plumb line" which any proper creed is created from if even needed. As far as councils, there is no better COUNCILOR than the Holy Spirit who convicts and conforms and councils us as we read the Word and appropriate it in our lives.
All teaching Authority comes from God not to those that follow some kind of tradition but to those who He has called. Notice as you read the Scripture below you do not see a hierarchy of rulers in the five-fold ministry, but a list of servants that the Lord has gifted to EQUIP the saints( believers) for service. The CHURCH is suppose to be serving and NOT Lording over. The Word shows a backwards system then we see in many religious systems. The whole reason there are Pastors,Teachers, Evangelists, Apostles (those sent) and Prophets is to equip Gods People for service. We are the ones to be a City on a Hill, Salt and Light, we are the foot soldiers that bring the Gospel to the pkmtyolmes by our word and deed.
So often I hear people trying to get someone "in Church" to hear the Gospel. The Scriptures say that we are the Body of Christ, not some building or religious organization!!!! We should be equipt to take the Gospel OUTSIDE the place we meet to be equipt!! Lets Read:
Eph. 4:11-16 says He is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. 12Their responsibility is to equip God's people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ, 13until we come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God's Son that we will be mature and full grown in the Lord, measuring up to the full stature of Christ. 14Then we will no longer be like children, forever changing our minds about what we believe because someone has told us something different or because someone has cleverly lied to us and made the lie sound like the truth. 15Instead, we will hold to the truth in love, becoming more and more in every way like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. 16Under his direction, the whole body is fitted together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love.
Amen, Masarap
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 26, 2004 10:12:25 GMT -5
So you would not rely on Scripture alone to explain the mysteries of faith. Supplemental information is needed to properly understand the Bible. What supplemental material would that be? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 26, 2004 10:15:27 GMT -5
I can sympathize with your thinking but reformers also did their share of Killing. So, what does that mean? I mean why pick on the Catholics? Other churches, other reformers have been just as violent, just as self rightous, just as exclusive in their "salvation". Because your leadership sanctioned the killing. No one is talking about individual acts, but organized terror. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 26, 2004 11:20:34 GMT -5
So you would not rely on Scripture alone to explain the mysteries of faith. Supplemental information is needed to properly understand the Bible. What supplemental material would that be? [/color][/quote] gene, Perhaps it is like the "supplemental information/material" that you received at the Revelation seminar... or the interpretation of Daniel that you have been spouting for SDAism and for the RCC perhaps it is the catechism or the writings of the early church fathers...or even the church service each week of any other denomination when the pastor explains the Bible to the congregation. Every denomination uses supplemental information. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Mar 26, 2004 11:55:31 GMT -5
Pietro, I agree in part and all is found in the Word of God. Ultimately all of the above mentioned "religious cults" depart from the Word of God by not NOT standing in agreement by their creeds and teaching authority.
The Word is the "plumb line" which any proper creed is created from if even needed. As far as councils, there is no better COUNCILOR than the Holy Spirit who convicts and conforms and councils us as we read the Word and appropriate it in our lives.
But they disagree on the how to apply the "plumb line" and who is to say who is right? [/b][/quote] I have no argument with you on these matters. My point is that there are divergent approaches and interpretations of scripture and they sometimes are in direct opposition to each other. You are saying that if they don't agree with scripture thay are wrong. What if they all sincerely believe that they agree with scripture? Is there not a need for us to get together and decide? They did it in Acts to decide on circumscission. Without this authority no one can say the jJehovah Witnesses or Mormans aren't right.
|
|
|
Post by masarap on Mar 26, 2004 13:28:25 GMT -5
But they disagree on the how to apply the "plumb line" and who is to say who is right? I have no argument with you on these matters. My point is that there are divergent approaches and interpretations of scripture and they sometimes are in direct opposition to each other. You are saying that if they don't agree with scripture thay are wrong. What if they all sincerely believe that they agree with scripture? Is there not a need for us to get together and decide? They did it in Acts to decide on circumscission. Without this authority no one can say the jJehovah Witnesses or Mormans aren't right. Pietro,The Word of God is "Living and Active and as sharp as a two (old and New) edged Sword"!! The Word interprets itself and is CLEAR on everything that essential to salvation. I believe its ok to have a creed of what the Word says, but its not an end all. The end all is that people would be encouraged to be "Bereans" who searched the Scriptures for themselves to see if what the teacher was saying was true. For sincere seekers God will open what is needed!!
Whats so supernatural about the Word of God is that it does what the rules and regulations of a religious system cannot... and that is that it works WITH the Holy Spirit to Judge the motives and intents of the heart. No creed can do that. For it to work there needs to be an "eye salve" otherwise its just a book of words that can be added to or taken from to support any wind of doctrine. But when the "eyesalve" is applied we find TRUTH. Let it be, Masarap
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Mar 26, 2004 16:54:49 GMT -5
Pietro,The Word of God is "Living and Active and as sharp as a two (old and New) edged Sword"!! The Word interprets itself and is CLEAR on everything that essential to salvation. I believe its ok to have a creed of what the Word says, but its not an end all. The end all is that people would be encouraged to be "Bereans" who searched the Scriptures for themselves to see if what the teacher was saying was true. For sincere seekers God will open what is needed!!
Whats so supernatural about the Word of God is that it does what the rules and regulations of a religious system cannot... and that is that it works WITH the Holy Spirit to Judge the motives and intents of the heart. No creed can do that. For it to work there needs to be an "eye salve" otherwise its just a book of words that can be added to or taken from to support any wind of doctrine. But when the "eyesalve" is applied we find TRUTH. Let it be, Masarap Then why can't you agree with Genesda?
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Apr 22, 2004 22:34:31 GMT -5
B. THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT MEET ITS OWN CRITERIA
You might imagine that such a belief system as Protestantism, which has as its cardinal doctrine that Scripture alone is authoritative in matters of faith, would first seek to prove that this cardinal doctrine met its own criteria. One would probably expect that Protestants could brandish hundreds of proof-texts from the Scriptures to support this doctrine - upon which all else that they believe is based. At the very least one would hope that two or three solid text which clearly taught this doctrine could be found - since the Scriptures themselves say, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (II Corinthians 13:1). Yet, like the boy in the fable who had to point out that the Emperor had no clothes on, I must point out that there is not one single verse in the entirety of Holy Scripture that teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. There is not even one that comes close. Oh yes, there are innumerable places in the Bible that speak of its inspiration, of its authority, and of its profitability - but there is no place in the Bible that teaches that only Scripture is authoritative for believers. If such a teaching were even implicit, then surely the early Fathers of the Church would have taught this doctrine also, but which of the Holy Fathers ever taught such a thing? Thus Protestantism's most basic teaching self-destructs, being contrary to itself. But not only is the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura not taught in the Scriptures - it is in fact specifically contradicted by the Scriptures (which we have already discussed) that teach that Holy Tradition is also binding to Christians (II Thessalonians 2:15; I Corinthians 11:2).
C. PROTESTANT INTERPRETIVE APPROACHES THAT DON'T WORK
Even from the very earliest days of the Reformation, Protestants have been forced to deal with the fact that, given the Bible and the reason of the individual alone, people could not agree upon the meaning of many of the most basic questions of doctrine. Within Martin Luther's own life dozens of competing groups had arisen, all claiming to "just believe the Bible," but none agreeing on what the Bible said. Though Luther had courageously stood before the Diet of Worms and said that unless he were persuaded by Scripture, or by plain reason, he would not retract anything that he had been teaching; later, when Anabaptists, who disagreed with the Lutherans on a number of points, simply asked for the same indulgence, the Lutherans butchered them by the thousands - so much for the rhetoric about the "right of an individual to read the Scriptures for himself." Despite the obvious problems that the rapid splintering of Protestantism presented to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, not willing to concede defeat to the Pope, Protestants instead concluded that the real problem must be that those with whom they disagree, in other words every other sect but their own, must not be reading the Bible correctly. Thus a number of approaches have been set forth as solutions to this problem. Of course there has yet to be the approach that could reverse the endless multiplications of schisms, and yet Protestants still search for the elusive methodological "key" that will solve their problem. Let us examine the most popular approaches that have been tried thus far, each of which are still set forth by one group or another
APPROACH # 1
Just take the Bible literally - the meaning is clear.
This approach was no doubt the first approach used by the Reformers, though very early on they came to realize that by itself this was an insufficient solution to the problems presented by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Although this one was a failure from the start, this approach still is the most common one to be found among the less educated Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and Charismatics - "The Bible says what it means and means what it says," is an oft heard phrase. But when it comes to Scriptural texts that Protestants generally do not agree with, such as when Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins (John 20:23), or when He said of the Eucharist "this is my body.... this is my blood" (Matthew 26:26,28), or when Paul taught that women should cover their heads in Church (I Corinthians 11:1-16), then all of a sudden the Bible doesn't say what it means any more - "Why, those verses aren't literal..."
APPROACH # 2
The Holy Spirit provides the correct understanding.
When presented with the numerous groups that arose under the banner of the Reformation that could not agree on their interpretations of the Scriptures, no doubt the second solution to the problem was the assertion that the Holy Spirit would guide the pious Protestant to interpret the Scriptures rightly. Of course everyone who disagreed with you could not possibly be guided by the same Spirit. The result was that each Protestant group de-Christianized all those that differed from them. Now if this approach were a valid one, that would only leave history with one group of Protestants that had rightly interpreted the Scriptures. But which of the thousands of denominations could it be? Of course the answer depends on which Protestant you are speaking to. One thing we can be sure of - he or she probably thinks his or her group is it.
Today, however, (depending on what stripe of Protestant you come into contact with) you are more likely to run into Protestants who have relativized the Truth to some degree or another than to find those who still maintain that their sect or splinter group is the "only one" which is "right." As denominations stacked upon denominations it became a correspondingly greater stretch for any of them to say, with a straight face, that only they had rightly understood the Scriptures, though there still are some who do. It has become increasingly common for each Protestant group to minimize the differences between denominations and simply conclude that in the name of "love" those differences "do not matter." Perhaps each group has "a piece of the Truth," but none has the whole Truth (so the reasoning goes). Thus the pan-heresy of Ecumenism had its birth. Now many "Christians" will not even stop their ecumenical efforts at allowing only Christian groups to have a piece of the Truth. Many "Christians" now also believe that all religions have "pieces of the Truth." The obvious conclusion that modern Protestants have made is that to find all the Truth each group will have to shed their "differences," pitch their "piece of Truth" into the pot, and presto-chango -the whole Truth will be found at last!
APPROACH # 3
Let the clear pkmtyolpages interpret the unclear.
This must have seemed the perfect solution to the problem of how to interpret the Bible by itself - let the easily understood pkmtyolpages "interpret" those which are not clear. The logic of this approach is simple, though one pkmtyolpage may state a truth obscurely, surely the same truth would be clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture. Simply use these "clear pkmtyolpages" as the key and you will have unlocked the meaning of the "obscure pkmtyolpage." As the Tubingen Lutheran scholars argued in their first exchange of letters with Patriarch Jeremias II:
Therefore, no better way could ever be found to interpret the Scriptures, other than that Scripture be interpreted by Scripture, that is to say, through itself. For the entire Scripture has been dictated by the one and the same Spirit, who best understands his own will and is best able to state His own meaning.10
As promising as this method seemed, it soon proved an insufficient solution to the problem of Protestant chaos and divisions. The point at which this approach disintegrates is in determining which pkmtyolpages are "clear" and which are "obscure." Baptists, who believe that it is impossible for a Christian to lose his salvation once he is "saved," see a number of pkmtyolpages which they maintain quite clearly teach their doctrine of "Eternal Security" - for example, "For the gifts and callings of God are without repentance" (Romans 11:29), and "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10:27-28). But when Baptists come across verses which seem to teach that salvation can be lost, such as "The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression" (Ezekiel 33:12), then they use the pkmtyolpages that are "clear" to explain away the pkmtyolpages that are "unclear." Methodists, who believe that believers may lose their salvation if they turn their backs on God, find no such obscurity in such pkmtyolpages, and on the contrary, view the above mentioned Baptist "proof-texts" in the light of the pkmtyolpages that they see as "clear." And so Methodists and Baptists throw verses of the Bible back and forth at each other, each wondering why the other can't "see" what seems very "clear" to them.
© John Mark Ministries. Articles may be reproduced in any medium, without applying for permission (provided they are unedited, and retain the original author/copyright information - and perhaps a reference to this website :-)!
(Post continued....)
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Apr 22, 2004 22:37:06 GMT -5
APPROACH # 4
Historical-Critical Exegesis
Drowning in a sea of subjective opinion and division, Protestants quickly began grasping for any intellectual method with a fig leaf of objectivity. As time went by and divisions multiplied, science and reason increasingly became the standard by which Protestant theologians hoped to bring about consistency in their biblical interpretations. This "scientific" approach, which has come to predominate Protestant Scholarship, and in this century has even begun to predominate Roman Catholic Scholarship, is generally referred to as "Historical-Critical Exegesis." With the dawn of the so-called "Enlightenment," science seemed to be capable of solving all the world's problems. Protestant Scholarship began applying the philosophy and methodology of the sciences to theology and the Bible. Since the Enlightenment, Protestant scholars have analyzed every aspect of the Bible: its history, its manuscripts, the biblical languages, etc. As if the Holy Scriptures were an archaeological dig, these scholars sought to analyze each fragment and bone with the best and latest that science had to offer. To be fair, it must be stated that much useful knowledge was produced by such scholarship. Unfortunately this methodology has erred also, grievously and fundamentally, but it has been portrayed with such an aura of scientific objectivity that holds many under its spell.
Like all the other approaches used by Protestants, this method also seeks to understand the Bible while ignoring Church Tradition. Though there is no singular Protestant method of exegesis, they all have as their supposed goal to "let the Scripture speak for itself." Of course no one claiming to be Christian could be against what the Scripture would "say" if it were indeed "speaking for itself" through these methods. The problem is that those who appoint themselves as tongues for the Scripture filter it through their own Protestant assumptions. While claiming to be objective, they rather interpret the Scriptures according to their own sets of traditions and dogmas (be they fundamentalists or liberal rationalists). What Protestant scholars have done (if I may loosely borrow a line from Albert Schweitzer) is looked into the well of history to find the meaning of the Bible. They have written volume upon volume on the subject, but unfortunately they have only seen their own reflections.
Protestant scholars (both "liberals" and "conservatives" have erred in that they have misapplied empirical methodologies to the realm of theology and biblical studies. I use the term "Empiricism" to describe these efforts. I am using this term broadly to refer to the rationalistic and materialistic worldview that has possessed the Western mind, and is continuing to spread throughout the world. Positivist systems of thought (of which Empiricism is one) attempt to anchor themselves on some basis of "certain" knowledge. 11 Empiricism, strictly speaking, is the belief that all knowledge is based on experience, and that only things which can be established by means of scientific observation can be known with certainty. Hand in hand with the methods of observation and experience, came the principle of methodological doubt, the prime example of this being the philosophy of Rene Descartes who began his discussion of philosophy by showing that everything in the universe can be doubted except one's own existence, and so with the firm basis of this one undoubtable truth ("I think, therefore I am") he sought to build his system of philosophy. Now the Reformers, at first, were content with the assumption that the Bible was the basis of certainty upon which theology and philosophy could rest. But as the humanistic spirit of the Enlightenment gained in ascendancy, Protestant scholars turned their rationalistic methods on the Bible itself-seeking to discover what could be known with "certainty" from it. Liberal Protestant scholars have already finished this endeavor, and having "peeled back the onion" they now are left only with their own opinions and sentimentality as the basis for whatever faith they have left.
Conservative Protestants have been much less consistent in their rationalistic approach. Thus they have preserved among themselves a reverence for the Scriptures and a belief in their inspiration. Nevertheless, their approach (even among the most dogged Fundamentalists) is still essentially rooted in the same spirit of rationalism as the Liberals. A prime example of this is to be found among so-called Dispensational Fundamentalists, who hold to an elaborate theory which posits that at various stages in history God has dealt with man according to different "dispensations," such as the "Adamic dispensation," the "Noaic dispensation," the "Mosaic dispensation," the "Davidic dispensation," and so on. One can see that there is a degree of truth in this theory, but beyond these Old Testament dispensations they teach that currently we are under a different "dispensation" than were the Christians of the first century. Though miracles continued through the "New Testament period," they no longer occur today. This is very interesting, because (in addition to lacking any Scriptural basis) this theory allows these Fundamentalists to affirm the miracles of the Bible, while at the same time allowing them to be Empiricists in their everyday life. Thus, though the discussion of this approach may at first glance seem to be only of academic interest and far removed from the reality of dealing with the average Protestant, in fact, even the average, piously "conservative" Protestant laymen is not unaffected by this sort of rationalism.
© John Mark Ministries. Articles may be reproduced in any medium, without applying for permission (provided they are unedited, and retain the original author/copyright information - and perhaps a reference to this website :-)!
(continued...)
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Apr 22, 2004 22:38:11 GMT -5
The great fallacy in this so called "scientific" approach to the Scriptures lies in the fallacious application of empirical assumptions to the study of history, Scripture, and theology. Empirical methods work reasonably well when they are correctly applied to the natural sciences, but when they are applied where they cannot possibly work, such as in unique moments in history (which cannot be repeated or experimented upon), they cannot produce either consistent or accurate results.12 Scientists have yet to invent a telescope capable of peering into the spirit world, and yet many Protestant scholars assert that in the light of science the idea of the existence of demons or of the Devil has been disproved. Were the Devil to appear before an Empiricist with pitch fork in hand and clad in bright red underwear, it would be explained in some manner that would easily comport to the scientist's worldview. Although such Empiricists pride themselves on their "openness", they are blinded by their assumptions to such an extent that they cannot see anything that does not fit their vision of reality. If the methods of empiricism were consistently applied it would discredit all knowledge (including itself), but empiricism is conveniently permitted to be inconsistent by those who hold to it "because its ruthless mutilation of human experience lends it such a high reputation for scientific severity that its prestige overrides the defectiveness of its own foundations."13
The connections between the extreme conclusions that modern liberal Protestant scholars have come to, and the more conservative or Fundamentalist Protestants will not seem clear to many - least of all to conservative Fundamentalists! Though these conservatives see themselves as being in almost complete opposition to Protestant liberalism, they nonetheless use essentially the same kinds of methods in their study of the Scriptures as do the liberals, and along with these methodologies come their underlying philosophical assumptions. Thus the difference between the "liberals" and the "conservatives" is not in reality a difference of basic assumptions, but rather a difference in how far they have taken them to their inherent conclusions
If Protestant exegesis were truly "scientific," as it presents itself to be, its results would show consistency. If its methods were merely unbiased "technologies" (as many view them) then it would not matter who used them, they would "work" the same for everyone. But what do we find when we examine current status of Protestant biblical studies? In the estimation of the "experts" themselves, Protestant biblical scholarship is in a crisis. 14 In fact this crisis is perhaps best illustrated by the admission of a recognized Protestant Old Testament scholar, Gerhad Hasel [in his survey of the history and current status of the discipline of Old Testament theology, Old Testament Theology: Issues in the Current Debate], that during the 1970's five new Old Testament theologies had been produced "but not one agrees in approach and method with any of the others."15 In fact, it is amazing, considering the self-proclaimed high standard of scholarship in Protestant biblical studies, that you can take your pick of limitless conclusions on almost any issue and find "good scholarship" to back it up. In other words, you can just about come to any conclusion that suits you on a particular day or issue, and you can find a Ph.D. who will advocate it. This is certainly not science in the same sense as mathematics or chemistry! What we are dealing with is a field of learning that presents itself as "objective science," but which in fact is a pseudo-science, concealing a variety of competing philosophical and theological perspectives. It is pseudoscience because until scientists develop instruments capable of examining and understanding God, objective scientific theology or biblical interpretation is an impossibility. This is not to say that there is nothing that is genuinely scholarly or useful within it; but this is to say that, camouflaged with these legitimate aspects of historical and linguistic learning, and hidden by the fog machines and mirrors of pseudo-science, we discover in reality that Protestant methods of biblical interpretation are both the product and the servant of Protestant theological and philosophical assumptions.16
With subjectivity that surpkmtyolpes the most speculative Freudian psychoanalysts, Protestant scholars selectively choose the "facts" and "evidence" that suits their agenda and then proceed, with their conclusions essentially predetermined by their basic assumptions, to apply their methods to the Holy Scriptures. All the while, the Protestant scholars, both "liberal" and "conservative," describe themselves as dispkmtyolpionate "scientists."17 And since modern universities do not give out Ph.D.'s to those who merely pkmtyolp on the unadulterated Truth, these scholars seek to out-do each other by coming up with new "creative" theories. This is the very essence of heresy: novelty, arrogant personal opinion, and self-deception.
Next article in series
top of page
© John Mark Ministries. Articles may be reproduced in any medium, without applying for permission (provided they are unedited, and retain the original author/copyright information - and perhaps a reference to this website :-)!God bless www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/9074.htm
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 18, 2004 15:52:25 GMT -5
I ran across this in a study guide fo Paul's letter t the Romans by Scott Hahn & Curtis Mitch and thought it summarized well:
Christians lived out their faith for well over a millenium before the printing press was invented. For centuries, few believers owned copies of the Gospels, and few people could read them anyway. Yet they absorbed the gospel- through sermons of their bishops and clergy, through prayer and meditation, through Christian art, through liturgical celebrations, and through oral tradition. These were expresions of the one "living tradition", a culture of living faith that stretches from ancient Israel to the contemporary Church. For the early Christians the gospel could not be understood apart from that tradition. And so it is with us.
I find it difficult to understand how people can have soo much reverance for the written word and not attribute any divine guidance for the living faith through which it came, a faith that continues to live and develop as time goes on.
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Sept 21, 2004 11:06:05 GMT -5
I ran across this in a study guide fo Paul's letter t the Romans by Scott Hahn & Curtis Mitch and thought it summarized well: Christians lived out their faith for well over a millenium before the printing press was invented. For centuries, few believers owned copies of the Gospels, and few people could read them anyway. Yet they absorbed the gospel- through sermons of their bishops and clergy, through prayer and meditation, through Christian art, through liturgical celebrations, and through oral tradition. These were expresions of the one "living tradition", a culture of living faith that stretches from ancient Israel to the contemporary Church. For the early Christians the gospel could not be understood apart from that tradition. And so it is with us.I find it difficult to understand how people can have soo much reverance for the written word and not attribute any divine guidance for the living faith through which it came, a faith that continues to live and develop as time goes on. And yet we have the Bible. The Bible was written and printed in order that the essential teachings of the Christian faith be preserved. If that hadn't happened it's just possible that they would have been lost forever. Oral tradition was very strong in ancient Israel and would I be right in saying that even to this day the Rabbis still encourage the children to memorize the Holy Scriptures? Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on May 4, 2005 8:15:53 GMT -5
And yet we have the Bible. The Bible was written and printed in order that the essential teachings of the Christian faith be preserved. If that hadn't happened it's just possible that they would have been lost forever. Oral tradition was very strong in ancient Israel and would I be right in saying that even to this day the Rabbis still encourage the children to memorize the Holy Scriptures? Christian. You are right but there is always a need for an authority to interpret the correct meaning, a supreme court, if you will, to interpret the constitution. That is why Jesus gave the "keys to the kingdom" to Peter and his successors and prayed for them as well (Lk 22:31). And if ther eis still doubt that Peter was given this authority why the dialogue in John 21:15-17?
|
|