Results 1 - 20 of 62
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Robin Hass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Subordinate? | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170937 | ||
"Chrysostom clearly believes in a divine oral tradition that teaches some things, not contained in scripture. While we would strongly disagree with Chrysostom on this point, we honestly admit that he seems to take such a view." http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers-chrysostom.htm This is from a pro "Bible Only" Site |
||||||
2 | "Here I stand; I can do no other." | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170935 | ||
I will in due course. It's approaching midnight here and I shall soon retire for the night. Also, I rarely get the opportunity to use the PC for as long as I have tonight in the midst of my busy life. Thanks for your input and your patient manner. Robin |
||||||
3 | "Here I stand; I can do no other." | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170933 | ||
Dear Tim, I have to say you are coming across with a good Christlike attitude and are not getting rattled. IMHO the problem you have is that the aforesaid Evangelicalism is a system of interpretation and you people in general are often forced to deny the plain, face value, literal meaning of the text because you are a-sacramentalist. The Nicene Creed states 'We acknowlege one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' , the Scripture says the same in Acts 2:38 yet your theological suppositions forced you to contort and deny the Scripture. You have so many 'difficult verses' that need the theological mallet! I see this all over the place in Evangelical dogma, denial of the literal meaning of James 2:24, denial of the literal meaning of John 6, denial of the plain words of Scripture, left, right and centre. I feel you fundamentalists have made a deep cardinal error regarding faith, that it is the channel through which God operates and never mere matter and then you have to deny a lot of the plain meanings. The full meaning of a bodily-incarnational theology has not been assimulated into your exegetical system. I don't know of any widely held doctrines of the Church Fathers that I think are not utterly Scriptural. Robin |
||||||
4 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170931 | ||
My only knowledge of the 'Via Media' is the well known work by the one-time Anglican Cardinal John Henry Newman and the fact that the Anglican Church is known here as the 'via media' or the 'bridge church.' However, thanks for this I will check out the site. However, I am definitely akin to the conservative Church Fathers, a small "c" catholic, and neither in the liberal or fundamentalist camp: an historic Christian, the whole way back. Not 150 years like the other two camps. |
||||||
5 | "Here I stand; I can do no other." | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170929 | ||
The Bible doesn't speak, we read it and interpret it. Without a living human to read it the Bible is nothing more than a dead book, no more than lifeless ink and paper. A man picks up a Bible, reads it, or hears it, and comes to an understanding, a construal, an interpretation. By whatever means he reaches his understanding of the Bible, I contend he is wrong to call his own, or his denomination’s, interpretation simply ‘the Bible’ and another interpretation tradition. Historic Christianity, rather than your "Non-conformist" brands as we say in England believe the Church interprets the Bible and eschew private judgement following Peter’s admonition that ‘first of all, no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation’ (2 Peter 1:20). And look to the ‘church of the living God’ as the only dependable interpreter of biblical truth that Scripture assures us is ‘the pillar and support of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). The Bible does not say that the Bible is ‘the pillar and support of the truth’ but that the Church is. I can only state have studied the History of Theology at one of the world's foremost universities that the histories of the anti-Catholic polemicists are often fanciful. Not that people haven't been killed by Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans. I am hardly getting into some revisionist "Holocaust Denial" mode here, simply asking you to consider that the mainstream histories are truer and more reliable. |
||||||
6 | "Here I stand; I can do no other." | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170925 | ||
True, but my main gripe is that fundamentalist / Evangelical "Bible Christians" too often want to identify themselves as unalloyed Reformation Christians conveniently forgetting the men they cite were extremely dissimilar in their theology: sacramentalists, believers in 'consubstantiation, people with high views of Mary, liturgical and creed reciters, etc. | ||||||
7 | Translating 'Tradition' | 2 Tim 3:16 | Robin Hass | 170923 | ||
Hello Steve, I understand that tradition pertains to a body of teaching that is handed down/over to someone else. It can be either positive or negative. Good definition. The 'conspiracy' is that some Protestant Bibles are not following concordance in translating 'paradosis'. So the Bible student using the NIV would not be able to do a legitimate Bible search on the word tradition. He would only find examples of tradition being bad. Where 'PARADOSIS' is good such as 2 Thess 2:15, only when it is 'good tradition' do these dodgy Bibles not render the Greek word paradosis as tradition. This is a theological agenda, they refuse to have a positive reference to Tradition in their translations. |
||||||
8 | "Here I stand; I can do no other." | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170919 | ||
The 66 books of the Bible are indeed in their entirety the Word of God. But the Word of God is more than this. It is Jesus Christ, it is the preached Word, it is the oral teaching of Jesus to his Apostles and held in the bosom of His teaching Church. All of which Scripture teaches. Where ever Luther chose to 'stand' thank the Lord you were standing somewhere else as Luther drowned believers in re-baptism / adult baptisers like yourself. Odd that he's a hero of yours when he would have had you murdered! http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.Arnold.RMT.10.HTML PERSECUTION OF ANABAPTISTS While many of the persecutions were invited on the Anabaptists by their own fanatics, others who were sound in faith were persecuted for their convictions on the Bible. The doctrinal, political and social views of the Anabaptists were obnoxious to both the Catholics and the Lutherans. Anabaptists were fined, drowned, burned at the stake, tortured, and persecuted in all the manners of the day for such crimes as refusal to pay tithes, re-fusal to attend church, refusal to refrain from Bible study groups in private homes, refusal to refrain from preaching, and other offences against the church-state. Thousands of Anabaptists were put to death. |
||||||
9 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170916 | ||
Because Scripture teaches so in 2 Thess 2:15. Not the Book of Mormon or the Koran but 'the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter FROM US. Simple really! This is exactly what the Christian Church, East and West taught until Martin Luther introduced novelty in the 16th-century. Scripture and Ecclesiastical Tradition. A fine example of the latter being Nicea's definition of the Trinity in 325 AD. |
||||||
10 | Translating 'Tradition' | 2 Tim 3:16 | Robin Hass | 170915 | ||
This is a weak observation because I am referring to Scripture's positive use of the word TRADITION. The word tradition (paradosis) occurs 12 times in the New Testament, thrice positively. 1 Cor 11:2 2 Thess 2:15 2 Thess 3:6 These are all positive examples. Am I to take it that you opine that tradition is proscribed by the New Testament. Furthermore, it is very common for Protestant and Evangelical Bibles (but not the NASB) to translate 'paradosis' as tradition where tradition is critiqued and something else where Tradition is spoken of positively. Which is bent. And a sure sign that some translators don't like what Scripture is teaching so they need to cheat. 1 Cor 11:2 NIV I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the TEACHINGS, just as I passed them on to you. Mark 7:5 NIV So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the TRADITION of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" 1 Cor 11:2 KJV Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ORDINANCES, as I delivered them to you. Mark 7:5 KJV Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the TRADITION of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? And with no dishonestly, our trustworthy host: 1 Cor 11:2 NASB Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the TRADITIONS, just as I delivered them to you. Mark 7:5 NASB The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the TRADITION of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?" What say ye of this foul play? |
||||||
11 | Subordinate? | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170912 | ||
The Word of God in the fullest sense in Jesus, God the Son. The Bible is God's written Word. The Bible is not my God. Nor is the Bible part of the Trinity; it is the Church's infallible book about God. It is subordinate, perhaps not a great word choice: i) In it's true interpretation by the Church for individual men. ii) The Church's birthday was the Day of Pentecost, no book of the NT had even been written. The Church was led infallibly by the Holy Spirit to later define the Biblical canon. |
||||||
12 | Scripture does teach. | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170911 | ||
I'm repeating myself now. 2 Pet 3:16 asserts 'as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand...'which is completely the opposite of what you assert! Acts 8:30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. The practical proof that Scripture is not perspicuous is the diversity of evangelical sects and their many conflicting opinions. In what way do you interpret 2 Peter 1:20, this verse states there is only one true interpretation for any Biblical verse, namely the official one taught by the Church: The Church of the living God, which 'the pillar and support of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). Scripture does not say the 'Bible is pillar and support of the truth.' |
||||||
13 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170909 | ||
I find if funny that fundamentalist “Bible Christians” continually appeal to the Reformers as if they themselves represent unalloyed Reformation Christianity. Luther, Calvin ‘and others’ were sacramentalist, baby-baptisers. Luther recited the Creeds, believed in ‘consubstantiation’, and held a high Mariology. Contemporary American fundamentalists would find more common ground with the Anabaptists whom Luther oversaw being drowned. Clearly, he felt this was some kind of physical pun regarding their wish to be fully immersed as adults. When he wasn’t writing books such as ‘On the Jews and Their Lies.’ I find it fairly sad that you can only identify with 16th-century Reformers who probably would have drowned any fundamentalists they could have got hold of, and some 19th-century Baptist icon. Talk about selective; if you choose to dismiss 2,000 years of Christian history then that's your loss. As for us, we High Anglicans particularly contend we 'own' the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Your Scripture selections are fairly dismal. The warning about adding or removing things in the Book of Revelation refers to tampering with the aforesaid text. Nor does Jesus stating 'Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will not pass away' teach anything that supports the "Bible Only" dogma. My quote which you mock "Whatever the Bible means, it is certainly referring to MORE INFORMATION." belonged with 2 Jn 12, which you you chose not to include: Having many things to write unto you, I would not [write] with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, THAT OUR JOY MAY BE FULL. John is not refering to what he will write on Patmos but to his oral teaching which will add some kind of completion to what he has already delivered. All you had to do was read the biblical quotation with a little care, at face value and in context. Robin |
||||||
14 | ... | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170906 | ||
... | ||||||
15 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170902 | ||
There is much truth in the Chicago Statement which repristinates the standard fundamentalist "Bible Christian" position. Nevertheless, the Bible is de facto subordinate to the Church's list of the books which are to be included in Bible. |
||||||
16 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170900 | ||
"...not opposing to the authority of the Bible" Lockman are not asserting that no user is welcome on this forum unless they subscribe to 'sola scriptura.' There are definitions of 'biblical authority' other than yours. I for one, subscribe to the Doctrine of Tradition in that I hold to this self-evident proposition: Scripture was never intended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it, and that, if we would learn doctrine, we must have recourse to teachers, Catechisms, and the Creeds. After learning the doctrines of Christianity, the inquirer must verify them by Scripture. And this is why I in no way impugn 'the authority of the Bible.' Indeed I do deny the ‘perspicuity’ of Scripture. It is an absurdity to say that ordinary people, with no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, archaeology, ancient history or writings of the Fathers of the Church, are competent to interpret it. Scripture itself says as much 2 Peter 3:16 ‘as also in all [Paul’s] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the UNTAUGHT and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.’ The Ethiopian reading Isaiah in Acts 8:31 said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Philip did not reply 'The Holy Spirit will enlighten you; keep on reading' but in accordance with the need for an official and correct interpretation Philip instructed him. In accordance I'm sure with 2 Peter 1:20 'But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,' Was Scripture ‘perspicuous’ to the ordinary man throughout history. The ordinary man could not even read until well into our modern era. Perhaps if you saw such a person picking up a Bible and looking at the fuzzy shapes you might concur. |
||||||
17 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170881 | ||
I don't really know the correct Christian response to your diatribe. So I'll err on the side of restraint and say nothing. May the Lord bless you Hank. |
||||||
18 | Christian tradition | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170880 | ||
Can you show me where the forum guidelines / rules state Sola Scriptura is a fundamental presupposition to the Study Bible Forum. So you see no conflict with 2 Thess 2:15 and the doctrine of sola scriptura? |
||||||
19 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170872 | ||
Modern-day converts to Rome...? Like his sister? http://www.diocesereport.com/special/patty_bonds.pdf |
||||||
20 | Christian tradition | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170871 | ||
I don't see any engagement with Scripture in the above passage. If you read my profile you'll see I'm coming from the Via Media viewpoint. The issue is whether Scripture makes the claim of Sola Scriptura for itself or whether it teaches Scripture and Tradition (we can dismiss the views the early Church but I'm sure you know the dogma of Bible ALone was not the view of the Church whilst it was thrashing out the great Christological doctrines which were expounded at Nicea and later). Let's chew over the Scripture verses. Answer me this please. If the 27 books of the NT aren't to be found in Scripture, is not the very list itself a Christian tradition. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |