|
Post by billbo1970 on Jul 11, 2003 15:41:48 GMT -5
|
|
logos
Full Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by logos on Jul 11, 2003 18:05:21 GMT -5
Yeah, As a rule I shouldn't write posts that long because people won't read them. What has happened to the attention span of our society, even the Christians are losing it!!!!
Encyclicals are basically official letter written by a Pope to the rest of the World. The Pope just wrote a couple (like 20-40 pages long each usually) one on the Eucharist and another on new "mysteries" to the Rosary. [The Rosary is a meditation on the life of Jesus, so you meditate on certain aspects and the Pope kind of reorganized it to include some more events, wedding at cana, baptism in the Jordan, Transfiguration, etc.]
I would like to add to the sola scriptura arguments: the most compelling verse for the case of sola scriptura seems to be: 2 Tim 3:16-17 : 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [apostle] may be complete, equipped for every good work.
In all of Scripture [OT and NT] the names "man of God" or "men of God" (KJV, NKJ) occur 74 times and in all 70-plus verifiable instances these names refer only to the highest spiritual authorities (e.g. prophets, kings of Israel, apostles). So when the apostle Timothy is called a "man of God" (1st Tim 6:11) Scripture thus reveals, in the person of Timothy, that apostles have the highest authority a saint can have. Since the Biblical name "man of God" denotes a high spiritual authority in general, and a New Testament apostle in particular, we now have the key to the correct interpretation of Paul's words specifically written to apostle Timothy:
2nd Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [apostle] may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Of course such "reproving and correcting" is the formal ministry of an apostle, as Paul states in the very next verse: "I charge you [apostle Timothy] in the presence of God ... preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching" (2nd Timothy 4:1-2). Had Paul intentioned all Christians in 2nd Timothy 3:17, then saying instead "...that the saints may be complete..." would have properly harmonized with the sixty plus uses of the word "saint" or "saints" in the New Testament. But Paul signified he had more specific Christians in mind by choosing the "man of God" name which, in harmony with Old Testament usage, verifiably refers only to high spiritual authorities in both of its two only other New Testament occurrences (1st Tim 6:11, 2nd Peter 1:20 ).
Ultimately this means that apostles - "men of God" - have a unique relationship with Scripture (2nd Timothy 3:16-17).
“we [apostles] have the prophetic word made more sure. You [saints] will do well to pay attention to this... First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2nd Peter 1:19-21).
So this private interpretation applies to the Holy Men of God, who have a special authority over the rest of us 'saints', not to the 'saints' themselves. This is what we must conclude if we are to interpret the Bible literally.
Pax Christi- logos
unfortunately I will not be around for the next 10 days. I will see you all soon.
|
|
|
Post by Konnie on Jul 11, 2003 20:44:03 GMT -5
Yes
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 11, 2003 21:00:16 GMT -5
Some develop, like the trinity which began to be explained with greater precision through successive creeds. Others, such as Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, didn't develop; they evolved.
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jul 13, 2003 2:17:34 GMT -5
If someone is claiming an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, their doctrine would have to be 100% correct. There is only one truth imparted by the Holy Spirit. The person themselves might not be perfect, but the doctrines they espouse must be infallible.
God bless
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jul 13, 2003 22:12:52 GMT -5
Any more thoughts on this topic? It's such a good thread, I hope we can keep it going
God bless
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 13, 2003 23:50:35 GMT -5
If someone is claiming an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, their doctrine would have to be 100% correct. There is only one truth imparted by the Holy Spirit. The person themselves might not be perfect, but the doctrines they espouse must be infallible. God bless Their doctrine on what? Yes, it has to be perfect on who Jesus is and what he did. I don't think it has to be perfect on certain other issues. If you read some of the Church Fathers, you'll find they disagreed on many things. Just tonight, some of them advocated holding one's hands up in prayer and other Fathers were against it. I consider that a trivial matter. Who is Jesus, what did he do and what must I do to be saved are three important questions that Christians will agree on, even though some will get hung up arguing over different ways of expressing the same ideas.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 14, 2003 6:47:07 GMT -5
I fail to see the exclusivity of Scripture that you claim to see in this pkmtyolpage. Can you show me where this excludes everything else besides Scripture?
1 Corinthians 4:6 - "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos, THAT IN US YOU MIGHT LEARN NOT TO EXCEED WHAT IS WRITTEN, in order than no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."
So, IF WE ARE NOT TO EXCEED WHAT IS WRITTEN, then what they wrote for us is final.
|
|
|
Post by Bondslave on Jul 14, 2003 8:50:00 GMT -5
If someone is claiming an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, their doctrine would have to be 100% correct. There is only one truth imparted by the Holy Spirit. The person themselves might not be perfect, but the doctrines they espouse must be infallible. God bless This assumes that each person listens and obeys the Holy Spirit 100% perfectly. Have you found that to be true in your life? Bondslave
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jul 14, 2003 9:28:56 GMT -5
Not to belabor the issue but I think we really need to give due respect for the tradition that gave us scripture and that lives along side it. A tradition that Ireneaus in the very early church supports:
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jul 15, 2003 13:08:39 GMT -5
This makes perfect sense, that God would guard his truth by pkmtyolping it along in a succession. This would insure that no false teaching would become established. Now, I wold have to say, this does not preclude the possibilty of God selecting an individual outside of this line, or group. It is possible. But, their doctrine would have to be held to the standard of those appointed.
God bless
|
|
|
Post by guidemeLord on Jul 15, 2003 17:11:32 GMT -5
I understand the argument, but let us put that aside since you have correctly pointed out that God is the Rock. If the Rock that Christ was referring to was himself, what purpose would it serve to change the name of Simon to Peter, if he was not indeed giving him the position of Vicar. Why did he specifically change his name to "rock"? He could have changed it to anything He wanted to, but the significance of naming him rock can not be overlooked or trivialized. And the meaning of Simon is??? Simon means "hot-tempered, volatile, and violent" wheras Cephas means "stable as a rock." Names were very important and I believe that is why Jesus renamed Peter. There is little evidence that Peter was named as a rock so that his name would contradict Christ as the rock. Remember it is Peter who denied Christ 3 times and Christ knew he would. I think Christ's choice of name also gave Peter a lesson in Humility after having denied Christ.
|
|
|
Post by guidemeLord on Jul 15, 2003 17:25:28 GMT -5
This makes perfect sense, that God would guard his truth by pkmtyolping it along in a succession. This would insure that no false teaching would become established. Now, I wold have to say, this does not preclude the possibilty of God selecting an individual outside of this line, or group. It is possible. But, their doctrine would have to be held to the standard of those appointed. God bless This is assuming that God did nothing new in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If you think about it. Jesus became the mediator between God and man.. not God and the pope but God and every individual man. The Jews had a succession of teaching and yet all that survived was the rules, rituals, and etc. So really that is what Christ came to accomplish.. that every individual would have access to spiritual unity with God without having to go through or hear from another person. The Catholic Church was the first to preach that the Bible doctrine was to complex to be understood by individuals.. that is wrong, unless the leaders of the Church are also accountable for the fate of their followers as Jesus accounted for us.. In other words, if the Pope is the mediator (as Jesus was) then if one of the Pope's followers is gonna go to hell, the pope must take on that punishment because he is the mediator.. That isn't right now is it? The true mediator gave His life for our sins so that we could commune directly with our Lord.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jul 16, 2003 10:35:47 GMT -5
2 Thes. 2:15 (KJV) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. The NT epistles comprise the Apostolic teaching that would have been found at various times by word or epistle. NT epistles are just that, epistles, letters and don't necessarily contain the totality of apostolic tradition. they were never meant to as the letter to the Thessalonians indicates. To believe otherwise is to believe that all that was expressed by word made it into an epistle at some point. One may believe that if one wishes but there is no justification to automatically exclude oral traditon not found in them.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jul 16, 2003 11:15:44 GMT -5
Until about 51 AD, when Paul wrote the earliest book of the New Testament (1st Thessalonians), the Church had only oral traditions about Jesus and his teaching, death, resurrection, and ascension. These traditions were monitored by the Church under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Some of the Apostles and some of their disciples wrote some of these traditions down, explored them, and developed them, thus producing the books of the New Testament. The Church in turn, through her Bishops, exercising their teaching authority ( Matthew 28:16-20), authenticated the New Testament books, identifying them as the work of the Holy Spirit. The Church has given us the New Testament. If Scripture is misused, apart from the Church which Christ founded to teach us, Scripture becomes "hard to understand, so that the ignorant and unstable distort it to their own destruction" (2nd Peter 3:16). Thus we end up with countless “churches”.
Not only does Christ institute a teaching Church (Matt. 28:19-20), endowed with his own authority (Luke 10:16; Matt. 16:18, 18:18), but we nowhere see the notion of "Scripture alone" in the teachings of any of the apostles or any of their successors. In fact, we even see examples of a preference for imparting teachings orally and not in writing: "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12; c.f., 3 John 13).
|
|