[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, that is well and good, but where are we supposed to look for truth? What is the bulwark and pillar of truth??? >>>[/quote]You tried this one on me before Christopher. Don’t you remember?
[/quote]
I don’t remember trying anything on you. I asked an honest question. [/quote]I am disappointed Christopher. A year goes by and I’m all but forgotten. That’s ok, I’ll cry on my pilow some more.=] 02-11-2011, 10:36 PM [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, would you say that the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth?[/quote]Here we go again. I cannot possibly keep up with you (post wise). No, of course not. The church is. 1st Timothy 3:15 =] However there is no article, hence the ESV translation of A pillar etc. That doesn’t really matter though, either way the ekklesia, the assembly of the faithful (in other words the elect, in other words the invisible church) is indeed the “pillar and buttress” (ESV) of the truth. I would certainly hope so. Who else are the ambassadors of Christ in the Earth?
[/quote]
Oh, not the same thing. I was asking, obliquely but asking him to tell me which institute was the bulwark.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Do you want me to answer you like I would a 12 yr old? If you’re confused, I already gave you a prescription for that.
[/quote]
I’m slow. Would you mind answering it for me like you would a 12 year old?
So far I’ve seen nothing but a string of deflections and half-responses. [/quote]
I have written substantial posts to try to answer the question. I don’t need to deflect anything. Your one sentence dismissal of my posts at this point seems almost rude. Do we know each other friend?
But I’ll try ONE MORE TIME. I would ask that you try to follow without any prejudice.
How can you quote the bible against tradition, when it is tradition that brought us the bible? How can we know even which bible without relying on tradition?
The answer is the Scriptures have authority because they are “given by inspiration” not because so and so said, yep that’s one of Paul’s letters. If we feel tradition (of fallible men) has gone beyond what the Scriptures say when plainly read, we have recourse to those Scriptures alone. The men that say- “we believe it means this”, have no more ability or right then we to say it, as they are fallible men as we are. Whatever they might know about the collected traditions, we may also know, and with our God given abilities, accept or reject. We are both in the same position before the BOOK, including to decide which book it is.
If this is not true, then you must listen to EVERYTHING the priest tells you is true. Even though it was not he who brought you the bible, but men that have died long ago.
It’s a good thing I’m self-employed, or I’d be in trouble today with my boss.[/quote]
Where in the bible did it say you should remove the books from it that one deems dubious?
Are you claiming that you don’t follow any traditions? I know lots of protestants, they are quite ritualized. Different than Catholics but ritualized just the same.
It really wouldn’t need to would it. It goes without saying it would be necessary. Differentiation is basic to some many things. Does a medical examination board need to tell the local hospitals not to except false licenses?
Nope. There’s bound to be habitual ways of doing things. What’s important is if they are consistent with the Scriptures or not. And you’re of course right about some protestants being very ritualized.
Let’s reword it. Fallible men took part in the NT canonization process. Fallible men interpret the bible. You are in the 2nd group. The men in the 1st group are as fallible as those in the 2nd group.
Let’s examine more closely what’s going on as the above process happened-
1-Scriptures given by inspiration. A God to man interaction.
2-Individual Christians (Christ in you) during the first centuries study NT letters and copies. Each individual makes a determination concerning a letter’s authenticity. He can do this because he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and “hath the witness in himself.”(1Jn 5:10 KJV) Also a God to man interaction.
3-Christian men get together and discuss their conclusions. A man to man interaction.
4-This conclusion is accepted by men in proceeding generations. A man to man interaction.
A Christian today, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, may go back to step 2, and make the exact same determination. He has the same ability to do this for the same reason the Christians of step 2 did. It would be a God to man interaction. His conclusion would have the same chance to be equally as valid, especially if he were to take some time and study the conclusions of other men on the subject.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote: Either, don’t listen to a priest or listen to everything a priest tells you? Are you using hyperbole when you say everything? Or do you mean in the realm of morals and faith?
[/quote]
Well yes, everything in the realm of morals and faith. Everything in your life the bible comments on. If you say you cannot study the bible directly on your own, and know correctly what it says. but must rely on a priest to do so, this then is the only logical conclusion.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote: All I have seen is that you have attacked the Catholic Church.
[/quote]
If this is all you have seen, I would submit you are too sensitive concerning this institution. I don’t think it is accurate to say I have “attacked” the Catholic Church. I have certainly brought up some negative examples from history. My point in doing so is to show she is an institution made up of sinful men, some much more, some less sinful than you. Not infallible to be sure. And not deserving of the reliance you place on her to interpret the bible or declare even what the bible is.
A Christian today, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, may go back to step 2, and make the exact same determination. He has the same ability to do this for the same reason the Christians of step 2 did. It would be a God to man interaction. His conclusion would have the same chance to be equally as valid, especially if he were to take some time and study the conclusions of other men on the subject.
[/quote]
I’d agree with you there Mr. Chen, but I would include women as well. Now if the Catholics would just shave the hair on the back of their necks, then the rest of us wouldn’t see it stand up on end over this issue. (Have your woman do it).