And btw I say your question in the Epitemology thread but I keep writing long posts and not having time to get to it. Will attempt to later.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
The problem with the line of castigation you and Mr. Chen are following, Tirib, is that it is the same one that the atheists use in denigrating the authority of Christianity or religion as a whole, oh yes it is, to borrow your line.
You will always be able to find something to point to and say “See, there it is! [point point jump up and down] Proof positive that the Romish Church is indeed the tool of Satan himself. Just looky there at all the bad stuff those varmints have been up to over the past 2000 years.”
Yet, if we point to similar acts, say, a certain instance of gleeful murder by one John Calvin, there’s always a way of weaseling out of responsibility because there is ultimately no one to answer for the misdeeds of your own Church. There are plenty, plenty of evils committed by men and women in Protestant churches, yes, even Calvinistic ones. Point to any one of those and the easy escape is always the same. Well, he’s not a REAL Christian. Yeah.
How is it not all just one big subjective mess? [/quote]
That’s why I prefer to stick with a plain reading of what the bible says. I don’t need to resort to any other authority. I don’t claim Til or any confession, or protestantism in general, just chapter and verse.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
The problem with the line of castigation you and Mr. Chen are following, Tirib, is that it is the same one that the atheists use in denigrating the authority of Christianity or religion as a whole, oh yes it is, to borrow your line.
You will always be able to find something to point to and say “See, there it is! [point point jump up and down] Proof positive that the Romish Church is indeed the tool of Satan himself. Just looky there at all the bad stuff those varmints have been up to over the past 2000 years.”
Yet, if we point to similar acts, say, a certain instance of gleeful murder by one John Calvin, there’s always a way of weaseling out of responsibility because there is ultimately no one to answer for the misdeeds of your own Church. There are plenty, plenty of evils committed by men and women in Protestant churches, yes, even Calvinistic ones. Point to any one of those and the easy escape is always the same. Well, he’s not a REAL Christian. Yeah.
How is it not all just one big subjective mess? [/quote]
That’s why I prefer to stick with a plain reading of what the bible says. I don’t need to resort to any other authority. I don’t claim Til or any confession, or protestantism in general, just chapter and verse.[/quote]
“Plain readings of what the bible says” are very dangerous sorts of readings. They have been used to justify horrors ranging from slavery and the oppression of women to genocide. “Plain readings” are highly subjective - what is plain to one person is a form of exegetical gymnastics to another. Regardless of how vehemently you claim to respect only “chapter and verse” as authoritative, the reality is that the lens you bring to the interpretation of Scripture has been shaped by your forebears. In other words, you see in the text what others have told you is there. Just because you can find a pattern of words within the bounds of the canon that can reflect the meaning you read into them doesn’t mean that the Scriptures are actually supporting your beliefs.
I am a Protestant myself, but Brother Christopher brings up a fundamental issue that every single Protestant has to deal with, and that is the nature of the canon’s authority. On what basis do we recognize only these sixty-six books as authoritative for Christian life and practice? By what authority do we allow the the anonymous Letter to the Hebrews to guide our beliefs about the atonement while omitting 1 Enoch, which is actually cited in Jude? If Protestants are going to exclude from the canon certain books which Catholics deem authoritative (1-2 Macc., SIrach, etc.), on what basis do we accept the rest of the Catholic canon?
Resort to claims of “the inner witness of the Holy Spirit” are fundamentally useless, because it implies that we are somehow at a more advantageous position with regard to the Spirit than those who originally argued for the canon’s formation. Whether we like it or not, the same people responsible for the canon’s formation are those responsible for formulating dearly held Protestant beliefs about the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. The reality is that we affirm the Trinity not because it is a biblical teaching, but because our Catholic brethren attempted to make sense of the biblical witness with the aid of the best philosophical and theological categories available to them in their day.
For example, if we resorted to the Bible alone, our understanding of the relationship within the Godhead would be fundamentally different. The fact is that even a careful reading of Scripture ALONE would not yield the doctrine of three co-equal, co-eternal members of the Trinity. Instead, Scripture only affirms that (1) there is only one God, (2) God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all included in the identity of God (though evidence for the Holy Spirit’s inclusion is weak at best), and (3) Jesus is subservient to God the Father, and the Spirit is subservient to them both. To get to our conception of the Trinity, you have to admit that the concerns that Catholic Fathers raised about intra-Trinitarian relationships were significant. You have to admit that, under the leading of the Spirit, they got God’s nature fundamentally right. But if Protestants agree with the views Catholics have supplied about the Trinity, why disagree with their views on the canon?
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< How is it not all just one big subjective mess? [/quote]It IS to you, but not to me. Once one accepts the scriptures as the final authority, chapter and verse as Brother Chen says, the unavoidable subjective component is thoroughly tamed. Your ecclesiology, doctrine of the church, leaves you bare and vulnerable to everything you said. The ecclesiology of the scriptures alone, which no offense, you do not understand, does not. Cornelius Van Til could be revealed as a pedophile. No difference.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< How is it not all just one big subjective mess? [/quote]It IS to you, but not to me. Once one accepts the scriptures as the final authority, chapter and verse as Brother Chen says, the unavoidable subjective component is thoroughly tamed. Your ecclesiology, doctrine of the church, leaves you bare and vulnerable to everything you said. The ecclesiology of the scriptures alone, which no offense, you do not understand, does not. Cornelius Van Til could be revealed as a pedophile. No difference.
[/quote]
Which, no offense, is like saying nothing at all.
Let say i wanna convert myself.
I would need to read the Bible again.
But…
How do i know which Bible i should use ?
How do i know which hermeneutic/exegetic methods i should use ?
Using “sola scriptura”.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Let say i wanna convert myself.
I would need to read the Bible again.
But…
How do i know which Bible i should use ?
How do i know which hermeneutic/exegetic methods i should use ?
Using “sola scriptura”.
[/quote]Epistemology is in our face like always Kamui. Knowledge is a system. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” (Proverbs 9:10) You ALWAYS have great questions. We’ll get there. I really want to give Chris a chance to answer. BTW you CANNOT convert yourself if that’s what you meant.
If you meant “I myself wanna convert” then that’s different. And yes you would need to read the bible, but you would also WANT to. It is the Word of life. Food and water for the soul alive in Christ. Just like you wouldn’t starve yourself of physical food, a believer will not starve himself of spiritual food.
Once born again you hunger and thirst for what makes you grow and be strong.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< How is it not all just one big subjective mess? [/quote]It IS to you, but not to me. Once one accepts the scriptures as the final authority, chapter and verse as Brother Chen says, the unavoidable subjective component is thoroughly tamed. Your ecclesiology, doctrine of the church, leaves you bare and vulnerable to everything you said. The ecclesiology of the scriptures alone, which no offense, you do not understand, does not. Cornelius Van Til could be revealed as a pedophile. No difference.
[/quote]Which, no offense, is like saying nothing at all. [/quote]I promise you I am not trying to be a jackass some more, but I really want to wait until Brother Chris sticks his head in my noo… uhhh I mean answers me. =] You haven’t been aggravated with me in quite a while. No need to start now, but if you do, this time it’ll be for the right reason.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< How is it not all just one big subjective mess? [/quote]It IS to you, but not to me. Once one accepts the scriptures as the final authority, chapter and verse as Brother Chen says, the unavoidable subjective component is thoroughly tamed. Your ecclesiology, doctrine of the church, leaves you bare and vulnerable to everything you said. The ecclesiology of the scriptures alone, which no offense, you do not understand, does not. Cornelius Van Til could be revealed as a pedophile. No difference.
[/quote]Which, no offense, is like saying nothing at all. [/quote]I promise you I am not trying to be a jackass some more, but I really want to wait until Brother Chris sticks his head in my noo… uhhh I mean answers me. =] You haven’t been aggravated with me in quite a while. No need to start now, but if you do, this time it’ll be for the right reason.
[/quote]
I’m not aggravated with you. Honestly.
I’m just telling you that discussing this matter requires logical, rational questions and answers. Whether or not we are ahead of ourselves and epistemology determines the answer to this and all other questions (and I understand that it does); right now, right here, the answer you provided is exactly as good, if not worse, than my saying that we are far better off relying upon the guidance of the same 2000 year old institution that gave us not only the Bible but the method of its exegesis in the first place.
I’ll wait and see how things play out in the meantime.
Fair enough for now. System Cortes. System. Everything I will ever say stands or falls as one in a comprehensive system of Faith, thought and practice in that order.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
The problem with the line of castigation you and Mr. Chen are following, Tirib, is that it is the same one that the atheists use in denigrating the authority of Christianity or religion as a whole, oh yes it is, to borrow your line.
You will always be able to find something to point to and say “See, there it is! [point point jump up and down] Proof positive that the Romish Church is indeed the tool of Satan himself. Just looky there at all the bad stuff those varmints have been up to over the past 2000 years.”
Yet, if we point to similar acts, say, a certain instance of gleeful murder by one John Calvin, there’s always a way of weaseling out of responsibility because there is ultimately no one to answer for the misdeeds of your own Church. There are plenty, plenty of evils committed by men and women in Protestant churches, yes, even Calvinistic ones. Point to any one of those and the easy escape is always the same. Well, he’s not a REAL Christian. Yeah.
How is it not all just one big subjective mess? [/quote]
That’s why I prefer to stick with a plain reading of what the bible says. I don’t need to resort to any other authority. I don’t claim Til or any confession, or protestantism in general, just chapter and verse.[/quote]
“Plain readings of what the bible says” are very dangerous sorts of readings. They have been used to justify horrors ranging from slavery and the oppression of women to genocide. “Plain readings” are highly subjective - what is plain to one person is a form of exegetical gymnastics to another. Regardless of how vehemently you claim to respect only “chapter and verse” as authoritative, the reality is that the lens you bring to the interpretation of Scripture has been shaped by your forebears. In other words, you see in the text what others have told you is there. Just because you can find a pattern of words within the bounds of the canon that can reflect the meaning you read into them doesn’t mean that the Scriptures are actually supporting your beliefs.
I am a Protestant myself, but Brother Christopher brings up a fundamental issue that every single Protestant has to deal with, and that is the nature of the canon’s authority. On what basis do we recognize only these sixty-six books as authoritative for Christian life and practice? By what authority do we allow the the anonymous Letter to the Hebrews to guide our beliefs about the atonement while omitting 1 Enoch, which is actually cited in Jude? If Protestants are going to exclude from the canon certain books which Catholics deem authoritative (1-2 Macc., SIrach, etc.), on what basis do we accept the rest of the Catholic canon?
Resort to claims of “the inner witness of the Holy Spirit” are fundamentally useless, because it implies that we are somehow at a more advantageous position with regard to the Spirit than those who originally argued for the canon’s formation. Whether we like it or not, the same people responsible for the canon’s formation are those responsible for formulating dearly held Protestant beliefs about the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. The reality is that we affirm the Trinity not because it is a biblical teaching, but because our Catholic brethren attempted to make sense of the biblical witness with the aid of the best philosophical and theological categories available to them in their day.
For example, if we resorted to the Bible alone, our understanding of the relationship within the Godhead would be fundamentally different. The fact is that even a careful reading of Scripture ALONE would not yield the doctrine of three co-equal, co-eternal members of the Trinity. Instead, Scripture only affirms that (1) there is only one God, (2) God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all included in the identity of God (though evidence for the Holy Spirit’s inclusion is weak at best), and (3) Jesus is subservient to God the Father, and the Spirit is subservient to them both. To get to our conception of the Trinity, you have to admit that the concerns that Catholic Fathers raised about intra-Trinitarian relationships were significant. You have to admit that, under the leading of the Spirit, they got God’s nature fundamentally right. But if Protestants agree with the views Catholics have supplied about the Trinity, why disagree with their views on the canon?[/quote]
You should stick around on this forum because I think you can contribute significantly with what you know. I think this clip may contribute to what you are trying to say.
Edit: Before any misunderstandings happen I don’t agree with everything written here but I do think he brought up several crucial points that Christians shouldn’t dwell in ignorance on and we should know why we believe what we do.
For example I do believe what the Athanasian Creed says about the trinity and believe that it does ultimately does derive from the scriptures themselves. However would I expect the early Christians to have the same nuanced understanding of the trinity as presented in the creed when it took the first few centuries to hammer it out although the truths it presents has been believed since the beginning?
X2
Please do stick around. Please.
I really hope this isn’t going down the hill it appears to be.
EDIT: By which I do not in way wish to imply that I hope our new friend doesn’t stick around. I very sincerely hope he does.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I really hope this isn’t going down the hill it appears to be.[/quote]
What hill would that be?
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
You should stick around on this forum because I think you can contribute significantly with what you know. I think this clip may contribute to what you are trying to say.
Edit: Before any misunderstandings happen I don’t agree with everything written here but I do think he brought up several crucial points that Christians shouldn’t dwell in ignorance on and we should know why we believe what we do.
For example I do believe what the Athanasian Creed says about the trinity and believe that it does ultimately does derive from the scriptures themselves. However would I expect the early Christians to have the same nuanced understanding of the trinity as presented in the creed when it took the first few centuries to hammer it out although the truths it presents has been believed since the beginning?[/quote]
To be clear, I am not attacking the doctrine of the Trinity as unbiblical. However, I do think we need to recognize the distinction, as our Catholic brethren do, between those beliefs or views explicitly supported in Scripture and those which are consistent with Scripture. The notion of three co-equal, co-eternal “persons” (hypostases) sharing one “substance” (ousia), while not explicitly expounded in Scripture, can nevertheless be understood as a faithful explanation or conceptualization of the relation between Father, Son, and Spirit. Do the Scriptures describe the intra-Trinitarian relationships in terms of “three co-equal, co-eternal “persons” (hypostases) sharing one “substance” (ousia)?” No, but Scripture does present Father, Son, and Spirit as all one God, and the Trinitarian formulation, while not derived from Scripture, is a way of faithfully expressing how such intra-Trinitarian relations can exist. In short, the Scriptures do not supply us with an explanation of how Father, Son, and Spirit can all be distinct persons and yet all share the identity of God; the church’s later Trinitarian formulations attempt to provide a faithful account of how such a relationship is possible. Such an account is consistent with Scripture, but since the Scriptures do not explicitly explain the intra-Trinitarian relationships, we cannot rightly say that the church’s account derives from Scripture. You cannot derive an account of something from a source that doesn’t provide an account haha!
As the great N.T. Wright noted in his interview, certain aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity were believed from the beginning (the inclusion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the identity of the one, true God of Israel), but it wasn’t until later that a systematic account of the intra-Trinitarian relationships were provided. I am not disputing the legitimacy of the later church’s systematic account; I am simply saying that the account reflects countless hours of assiduous, erudite, synthetic reflection on the witness of the Scriptures, not the simple recognition of what the Scriptures explicitly say about intra-Trinitarian relations.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Let’s go back to this one though; you have big problem. And to answer the question of why the issue of the Peter not being the first pope is so important- Of course it’s because this mistaken belief is the foundation of the whole hierarchical structure.
No Jesus didn’t. Simon was already also called Peter when Jesus first met him:
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (Mat 4:18)
[/quote]
Ah, we are running into translation problems now:
“While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
(Matthew 4:18 ESV)”
In the ESV translation, you see the “who is called Peter” in the present tense while the rest of the sentence is past tense.
Further, if that were true, then there would be no need for John 1:42:
“He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).(John 1:42 ESV)”
In long form the above indicates that Simon is now known as Peter. So you know who this Simon is and are not confused. The scripture of John that Jesus gave this pronouncement of ‘Cephas’.
Um yeah, no.
Peter spoke first saying:
“And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, â??Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
(Acts 15:7 ESV)”
James merely added to it. Acts 15 makes no indication what so ever, that James presided over Peter in the matter. He simply put the exclamation on Peter’s proclamation.
Second, even if there were such a thing, no apostolic proclamation would trump Christ’s own.
Which means nothing. Why wouldn’t Paul or any other apostle be able to rebuke Peter? Peter was just a man after all, nor did he claim to be perfect. Peter did correct his mistake anyway, either by Paul’s rebuke or the dream he had in Acts.
Peter also warned about Paul’s letters being misunderstood and misused:
“as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:16 ESV)”
Peter was the one who replaced Judas among the 12. He was also the first to speak and proclaim Jesus. Who but a person with the authority to do so, could do so?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I really hope this isn’t going down the hill it appears to be.[/quote]
What hill would that be? [/quote]This one[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< the great N.T. Wright >>>[/quote]I can smell em a thousand miles away.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The apocrapha was hardly removed “suddenly” by Luther. The OT was written in Hebrew. No intertestamental books there. The Pashitta already contained all but 5 of the 27 NT books by the 5th century.
You brought up the question of rituals. I called them “habitual ways of doing things.” I don’t think it’s a big issue.[/quote]
The point is that the Deuteronical books were removed to suite man, not God. Luther claimed no divine inspiration, yet he felt he had to remove texts that were contrary to his teachings. Why, because they were written in Greek?
I know there has been controversy over these and other books before, but why did Luther remove them. He also removed the epistle of James, because of the proclamation that ‘Faith without works is dead’.
What get’s confused is the difference between James and Paul. When Paul was referring to works, he was talking about ‘works of mosaic law’. James was referring to works as service to God and others.
It doesn’t really matter what they are called, rituals or habits. I am fine with rituals, there is nothing wrong with them. There is something wrong with ‘just going through the motions’ but there is nothing wrong with rituals.
God himself prescribed 641 of them in the good ol’ days.
Tiribulus, why are you singling out Brother Christopher? I don’t mean to pry into your relationship, but I do believe that, before we can understand anything, we have to understand context. You seem to enjoy debate; why did you pick him as your primary debate partner?
You won’t answer Kamui or Cortes until Christopher responds to you - why? There seem to be other, equally worthy “debate opponents” (if that’s actually what you are looking for) on this thread. Are you trying to convert him to Protestantism, or rather, since you claim to follow no creed except Scripture’s, to at least convert him away from Catholicism?
Also, I’m also confused by what hill we are supposedly tumbling down. And what does my appreciation for N.T. Wright have to do with anything? Granted, his stuff on Paul is often out-there, but he has done more than many Protestants to defend the historicity of Jesus and doctrine of Christ’s divinity. It is for his work on historical Jesus issues that I applaud Tom Wright. What odor do I now exude?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Fair enough for now. System Cortes. System. Everything I will ever say stands or falls as one in a comprehensive system of Faith, thought and practice in that order.[/quote]
How does someone who calls themself a Christian demonstrate faith? Is it through movement of lips? If I say I am a weightlifter, does that make me one?