Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183910 | ||
Rehi stjames7 At least we can agree on the fact that salvation is offered as a free gift which cannot be earned by merit, and that no one is forced to accept that gift. But what is equally important is how that gift is obtained. You follow your church's belief that it is mainly obtained through the sacraments. But that is not what the verses you have cited say. Jesus' words to Nicodemus were to Nicodemus, and they were spoken before Christian baptism existed. They cannot therefore refer to Christian baptism. They could just possibly include a reference to John's baptism, but it is not really likely that Jesus was saying to Nicodemus 'you must be born of John's baptism' Rather as I mentioned previously His words have in mind the many promises in the prophets that speak of the Holy Spirit coming like rain and like water from Heaven (Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5). Thus His point is that he can be born from above throughthe Holy Spirit. But how does John see this as happening. He explains it in chapter 1.12-13. 'To as many as received Him to them gave He the right to become children of God, even those who believe in His Name --- who are born of God. He illustrates it in John 4 where the woman is to drink of spiritual water be listening to His words and as a result receiving the Holy Spirit to be like a spring within her heart. There too water is mentioned but there is no conception of baptism. It is true that baptism illustrates these experiences but it is never said to bring them about. You cite "Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." And that is good. But I do not see there any reference to a sacrament. These words were spoken in front of His disciples to the antagonistic Jews long before there was any thought of the Lord's Table, or as you would call it Holy Communion or Mass. They could not possibly have been expected to see that He was speaking of a sacrament. But Jesus wanted them to understand His words. In fact He was taking well known figures of speech from the Old Testament where 'eating flesh' and 'drinking blood' first of all meant killing people, and then receiving benefit from their death. Thus Jesus was making clear to them in a very vivid way that if they were to find life it must first of all result from their putting Him to death. He was describing the inevitability of His sufferings knowing that they were already plotting His death. But He then brings out from that that by eating and drinking of Him (something that He has already explained the meaning of in verse 35) they can find life through Him. And what does eating and drinking mean? It means coming to Him and believing on Him. So you see if we take these verses in contex they have no reference to the sacraments at all, although we will all agree that the sacraments illustrate them well. Best wishes. jonp. |
||||||
2 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjames7 | 183921 | ||
It seems that my comments have raised quite a bit of discussion so in an effort to bring this to a close I will answer this one last reply. I've tried to explain my faith but it's best you all get the story from the horses mouth. I suggest that you objectively read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In addition I also suggest that you start reading some of the insight offered by the Church Fathers (St Augustine, St Ambrose, St Ignatius of Antioch etc.) and see what the men closest to the actual events had to say. Then check out some of the Vatican II documents like Dei Verbum. I think you will find that the early Church faced many of the same objections that are raised here and through the grace of the Holy Spirit, discerned the proper interpretation and application of scripture. Come to think of it, I have yet to read any answers to my questions from earlier posts... "Perhaps I should clarify a misunderstanding, everything mentioned in my previous reply is the proclamation of the Catholic Church as professed in the Catechism. "I" am not interpreting scripture because I do not have the ability to do so (2 Pet 1:20). Since this is the case, who has the authority to tell me which books of scripture are inspired and which are not? I can't trust a single individual for the same reason I can't interpret scripture myself. How can I know with 100 percent certainty (my soul is at stake here) that what I read in the Bible, any Bible, is the truly inspried Word of God? And if I do believe that the Bible is God's Word, how am I to understand it (Acts 8:29-31)?" "I would like to know: what authority does the The Westminster Confession of Faith have to determine the canon of sacred scripture? How would I know that what the Westminster Confession of Faith taught was the truth? The Westminster Confession of Faith was written 100 years after Trent at the reqest of the English Parliment whereas the Council of Hippo had already compiled the canon of sacred writings almost 1,300 years prior. The Hippo Synod had much more reliable manuscripts available as well as, through apostolic succession, the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Had not the early Catholic Church discerned the scriptures as God intended, we would still have books such as the aforementioned gospel of Thomas, etc. I'm sure you would agree that if the Church was able to eliminate the uninspired writings, then the ones remaining must be inspired. Otherwise none of the books of any bible today could be considered as Divine Revelation." Even if we dismiss the Apocryphal books we would all agree that the New Testament is the true and inspired Word of God. So again I'll ask... If the 4th century Church was able to discerne the inspired books, particularly the Gospels, then the other rejected writings must not be true. If the Church was able to discerne the inspired books then the Holy Spirit would make sure that the Church were also able to interpret the same Word. Either the Church got it right or it got it wrong and if it's wrong then every bible in the world is wrong and if it's right then it must all be right. So, where do you get the authority to interpret scripture on your own? If you think the scriptures themselves supply the answer then the Bible should say that it is the only authority. The original passage for this thread was 2 Tim 3:16 which mentions that all scripture is inspired but nowhere does the Bible say that only scripture is inspired. If the Bible cannot affirm it's own authority and the individual is not able to interpret scripture then that leaves only the Church. The Catholic Church, founded by Christ, the original Christians. Trust in the Church which Christ founded on Peter,"the Rock" and you will find sources of grace that you never thought possible. Sorry for such a long post and with that I thank God that you are so adament in your love for our Lord Jesus. May He bless each of you abundently. stjames7 |
||||||
3 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | DocTrinsograce | 183923 | ||
Dear stjames7, Thank you for your comments. Please keep in mind the terms you agreed to in creating your account for SBF participation -- the sole authority of Scripture. We can all search out Romanist teaching, if we have any interest in it. Our focus here is the Bible... hence the title of the forum. Thank you, however, for the information. In Him, Doc |
||||||