FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-11-2001, 03:46 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Josephus,

This is not addressed directly to you, but the excerpt does come from your post.

Yet, the literalness of the resurrection only is irrelevant from the position that says only the message needs to be true.

To clarify my own thinking, I just want to state that this position is, to my mind, illogical because the message itself is that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

I still have to catch up on Captain Bloodloss's post. Sorry about the delay.

--Mike
 
Old 01-11-2001, 04:04 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nomad,

For heaven's sake, let's not turn this into a discussion about church authority, okay? It is obvious that a body of believers has the right to regulate its own membership, but there may (and, in my opinion, did) come a time when the majority falls into error and a smaller body must break away to maintain the integrity of the original message. We must keep in mind that all times that Christ held (and in a sense was) the original message, which was given inerrantly to the apostles, who communicated it inerrantly to their converts and made it concrete in the Scriptures. The bishops that followed, however, were fallible men who had access to the original message but not the full inspiration given by Christ to the apostles to interpret it as completely and fully as the apostles. Granted, these bishops were the people best qualified to interpret the apostles, but they were not infallible in their teaching as the apostles were. By the second century you can already see little errors creeping in, and even some bigger ones caused by bishops and elders who meant well but were relying more on speculation than on the original message of the apostles as contained in Scripture. Over the centuries, the original message of the apostles was interpreted and reinterpreted again and again by these well-intentioned people of great knowledge and authority who were influenced either by the errors of the past or the wanderings of their own past, and some of them made speculations that by the weight of "tradition" became matters of doctrine and, finally, of unquestionable dogma. Things should never have gotten this far. However, things did, and it wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that people began to start looking again at the original message of the apostles as contained in Scripture and say, "What did the first ones say? What does God say? Never mind what the church says if it conflicts with what God says."

Of course, lacking any real structure or basis for their authority, the founders of the Reformation began their own churches -- what else could they do, being disowned by the "one, true Church" as they had been? Then, unfortunately, more and more schisms erupted over what could be called the "fine print" of Christian doctrine, and now we have the needlessly tangled mess we have today. However, the principle of the Reformation holds continues to hold true -- we are to find out what God says, and while the teachings of the bishops of the church may shed illumination on the Word of God, it may never supplant the Word of God as the principle authority over all creation.

(If you want a concrete example, I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity not because the church teaches it and has always taught it, but because to deny the doctrine of the Trinity is to contradict the Bible. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity serves as a useful clarification of what is already contained in Scripture.)

--Mike
 
Old 01-11-2001, 10:28 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mpartyka:

For heaven's sake, let's not turn this into a discussion about church authority, okay?</font>
Hello Mike

I am not attempting to distract this discussion, and if you wish for me to withdraw from the thread I will. However, I do think that the point that I made (that once we moved the idea of Sola Scriptura from its original intent of compelling the Church leaders to stick to the Bible for support rather than appealing exclusively to their own authority, to an exegetical free for all where interpretation was personalized almost to the exclusion of everything else) is central here.

Once we accept that individuals (presumably guided by the Holy Spirit) are free to read the Bible as they see fit, we end up with the liberals and atheists alike picking the Scriptures apart, and reading anything they wish into the text (even as we were warned by Peter himself in 2 Peter 3:15-16).

Remove the teaching authority of the Church, and the only logical conclusion is to leave us arguing with the liberal and the sceptic on the equal footing of human reason alone. Deny that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, and what will become the new pillar? Certainly the Bible itself does not make this claim for itself. If it does, could you please offer your textual supports?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> It is obvious that a body of believers has the right to regulate its own membership, but there may (and, in my opinion, did) come a time when the majority falls into error and a smaller body must break away to maintain the integrity of the original message.</font>
Since I am a Lutheran, and think that what Luther did was necessary, I do agree with you here. At the same time, Luther did not want a break, and certainly not a permanent break in the Church. Jesus' prayer in John 17 that we become as one as He and the Father are as one rang clearly in Luther's ears.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We must keep in mind that all times that Christ held (and in a sense was) the original message, which was given inerrantly to the apostles, who communicated it inerrantly to their converts and made it concrete in the Scriptures.</font>
Agreed, and the apostles themselves selected their successors, and invested them with the same authority and infallability, leaving them with their clear writings (in the form of the Scriptures both Old and New Testaments) to help guide them.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The bishops that followed, however, were fallible men who had access to the original message but not the full inspiration given by Christ to the apostles to interpret it as completely and fully as the apostles.</font>
How do you know this? Exactly when did they fall away from the truth and become apostate?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> ...By the second century you can already see little errors creeping in, and even some bigger ones caused by bishops and elders who meant well but were relying more on speculation than on the original message of the apostles as contained in Scripture.</font>
Please offer some examples from the Second and Third Centuries of these errors that were taught as actual Church doctrines (as opposed to the personal opinion of one or two early Fathers).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Over the centuries, the original message of the apostles was interpreted and reinterpreted again and again by these well-intentioned people of great knowledge and authority who were influenced either by the errors of the past or the wanderings of their own past, and some of them made speculations that by the weight of "tradition" became matters of doctrine and, finally, of unquestionable dogma.</font>
But what were the errors? How does clear Scripture refute what they taught? A gain I am thinking of doctrines, not speculations by individuals, no matter how great they were as individuals.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Things should never have gotten this far. However, things did, and it wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that people began to start looking again at the original message of the apostles as contained in Scripture and say, "What did the first ones say? What does God say? Never mind what the church says if it conflicts with what God says."</font>
Yes. This is the definition of Sola Scriptura as I explained above. But after the Reformation the number of supposed conflicts between the Church and Scripture multiplied. How is this possible? Can only the newer Churches be right, even when ALL of the older Churches disagree with the new interpretations?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...However, the principle of the Reformation holds continues to hold true -- we are to find out what God says, and while the teachings of the bishops of the church may shed illumination on the Word of God, it may never supplant the Word of God as the principle authority over all creation.</font>
Of course. But when what they teach DOES line up with what the Bible could say, and all believers everywhere for all of the time up to that point have believed the same thing, is it still possible for the bishops to be wrong? If so, how can we be certain of anything, including that the liberals are in error for denying the Creeds?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">(If you want a concrete example, I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity not because the church teaches it and has always taught it, but because to deny the doctrine of the Trinity is to contradict the Bible. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity serves as a useful clarification of what is already contained in Scripture.)</font>
I agree again, but this doctrine and the Creeds that proclaim it were not firmly established until the 4th Century. Similarily with the doctrine of Original Sin. This did not become accepted doctrine by all until the 5th and 6th Centuries. Lutherans, like the Orthodox Churches, accept the Ecumenical Councils and their conclusions up until the 8th Century at least (or even the 12th). Where do we draw the line in your view? When did the errors of the Church become so significant as to demonstrate that they were apostate? If it is not until the 16th Century (or the 8th), would you accept the teachings of the Church that come from this earlier period, provided Scriptural proofs can be offered for them?

Again, if this is too far off topic, I apologize, and will withdraw, but I do believe the questions are pertinent to this discussion.

Nomad
 
Old 01-13-2001, 12:57 AM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hey guys,

I'm sorry to not be keeping up on this thread. I am just way too tired write now. I am a writer anyway, and in addition to the time taken on this forum, I write quite a bit more... frankly I'm a little burned out at the moment. It's too bad, because I don't want my exhaustion to be mistaken as a "coping" out. But hopefully by this time, I've sufficiently demonstrated my ability to "hang in there" in the tough discussions....

So, I'll be around, but I'm taking some rest for now. Hope you'll find enough to chat about on your own!

I'll catch up with you later,
Andrew
 
Old 01-13-2001, 12:17 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

John 8:12-59 Jesus identifies Jews as children of the devil.

+++++
Context please; I don't think He was refering to all Jews, since His own followers were Jews... :]
+++++

The conservative objection to any non-literal understanding of the resurrection lies mainly in the recitation of this passage of Paul?s: ?if Jesus be not risen, your faith is in vain.? But this statement is ambiguous, it needs a clarification of terms.

+++++

Hmm, well I don't find it any harder to believe that He could walk through walls than I do that He could walk on water. Besides, what of the verse telling us to test all spirits as to whether Jesus came in the flesh? (I hope that's rather clear enough... And then, just what happened to His body? Burned, stolen, eaten by wolves; what? If He has a spiritual body, how can you touch His wounds; why not get rid of them in a whole new body? What about tradition on this, too? Those traditions are as old as the text & these people should know better, right? :]

I really think that you can't just say "it's completely literal" or "it's entirely mythical" ... you really have to use your brain and avoid imposing any bias you have on your understanding :] There are some cloudy issues, but I just can't see this as one of them; sorry.
 
Old 01-13-2001, 02:15 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Captain Bloodloss,

In Jesus, we see the unity of the eternal logos, also called Christ, representing the power in Being-itself, with the individual being of the man, Jesus. This unambiguous unity it was makes us able to not just speak of Jesus, but speak of Jesus as the Christ.

First of all, the idea that Jesus is one and the Christ is another, and that they were perhaps unified for a time, is refuted by writings as far back as the second century, which unequivocally state that Jesus is the Christ, and that the eternal Word of God himself was made flesh as the man Jesus. There is no "Jesus and Christ" or "Jesus with Christ", but only the one Jesus Christ.

So, in light of that understanding, I can say that I believe the norm, or the “lens” through which we should investigate all scripture is the “theocentrically understood” promise of God lovingly offered to each and all and the command of God that justice be done to each and all – in short, the message of the Gospel is the “lens” through which we should investigate all texts. It is important to remember this, because I believe that those who would call themselves Christians do not have a responsibility to proclaim the text at any cost – they have a responsibility to proclaim the gospel at any cost. That cost may include even speaking out against certain texts (or interpretations of the text) that go contrary to that larger message. (More on that later)

I haven't gotten to the "later" part, but you've already got a major, major problem. You equate the gospel with the "promise of God lovingly offered to each and all and the command of God that justice be done to each and all," and you assert that this is the message that we are to transmit down through the generations.

The problem is that this message you have concocted, spiritually sound as it may be, is not the gospel.

To find the true gospel, we can look first to the Bible, in which are contained four gospels, in fact. And, while each of them contain a wealth of spiritual knowledge, they are also historical accounts of Jesus' life, death, and, yes, resurrection from the dead.

Then, we can also go to the writings of the apostles to find the gospel, particularly the first letter of the apostle Paul to the church at Corinth -- the same one from which the passage of Scripture we will soon be considering is extracted.

[I remind those reading this who may be unfamiliar with 1 Corinthians that this particular letter was written by Paul to a church which had been growing more and more immoral and was giving ground to much heresy. It is, essentially, a letter of reprimand and a letter of correction to those who are not behaving and continuing in the truth as they should. It is implausible, therefore, that Paul would seek to hide his meanings from his readers by using purely symbolic language, yet I get the feeling that's the argument Captain Bloodloss will use.

Now, let's see what Paul says.]

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 -- For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:22-24 -- For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1 Corinthians 2:1-5 -- When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 -- Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you —- unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures....


There are two things which are immediately apparent from Paul's references to the gospel in these verses:

1) It is not a message that needs to be explained. The gospel is the message itself. This is logical, given that the word gospel means "good news." Paul's primary commission is to spread the message, not interpret it, though he often does that.

2) The message consists of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion for our sins, and his resurrection from the dead. This message, moreover, is of "first importance." That is, whatever else we may wish to add to this message, we must as our highest priority deliver the message itself.

It should be clear from these passages that your attitude toward the gospel, its meaning, and its importance is vastly out of synch with the striaghtforward teaching of Paul. You are claiming that it is not what Paul writes that is the gospel, but rather that the meaning behind what Paul writes, namely your own concocted message, that is the gospel. This is impossible to deduce from the passages above, for when he repeats the gospel for his readers he says absolutely nothing about your message at all. Moreover, he declares that what he is reminding them is of primary importance, meaning that while you may seek to explain the gospel through the message you have concocted, your concoction is of lesser importance than the gospel itself. Your concoction, therefore, is not the gospel, but rather the gospel is what Paul has clearly stated it to be.

If you are basing your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 on this flawed concept that the gospel is something other than the plain and simple message given by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4 in light of his unanimous rejection in previous passages of having to break it down, analyze it, or spiritualize it, then I'm not sure I need to go any further than this.

Here are some other examples of texts that under the liberal norm and interpretive lens might be considered both theologically inappropriate and incredible....

You may be shocked to learn that I find all the texts you have cited, including the "troubling" one you mentioned prior to the list, to be theologically appropriate and credible. I do not wish to get into an explanation of my views on each and every one of your examples, however, since that would drag us far from the topic. I merely point this out to refute your notion that there are some portions of the Bible that simply cannot be believed.

So, to summarize, in a more liberal interpretive process we have establish the norm or lens through which to approach the text....

Again, your lens is obviously flawed.

But next, we need to understand the historical and textual intension of the text itself. In other words, was the text serving as a historical document, was the text a narrative, was it to be understood symbolically? How do we go about determining the difference?

As I noted before for other readers, 1 Corithians is a letter of reprimand and correction to a church whose teaching and morality were degenerating.

Well, obviously, the interpretive method that has been described above allows for the possibility of simply say, “well, Paul was wrong.” But that is not something to be done lightly – it should mean that somehow Paul’s words are not compatible with the heart of the gospel – our normative lens.

See, this is one of the things that strikes me as unbelievably arrogant about the "liberal" approach to interpretation. It starts with personal belief and forces the text to conform, and if the text cannot be conformed to the individual's belief system, the "liberal" approach then shifts to discarding the text outright. Essentially, the "liberal" approach assumes that the interpreters understand the message being proclaimed better than the people who first proclaimed the message! Is this not the heart of arrogance? Would anyone seek to interpret Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage by stating first that it must be a message about peace and long life, and then conforming the text to this message, discarding all those "troubling" passages about war, fear, bloodshed, and sudden death?

This is not "liberal." Liberals would be insulted by the application of their moniker to this mode of butchering the text. This is a "ridiculous" mode of interpretation, and nothing less.

My intent was to clarify for Mike and other “conservative” Christians exactly what kind of interpretive process goes into the liberal assertions about the resurrection and other things – that they are not all ill-informed, and they are not all simply re-inventing the “facts” to fit the desired results.

But that "reinvention" is exactly what you have described! You have discarded the gospel, put your own meaning of the resurrection in its place, and then you have squeezed the text into the mold you have chosen for it, completely ignoring all of Paul's warnings that the gospel is a straightforward message that requires no elaborate explanation.

For the umpteenth time, you have disappointed me. You have not even gone so far as to interpret 1 Cor 15 line-by-line, which certainly should not be difficult to do for someone so well-versed in "liberal" -- sorry, "ridiculous" -- interpretations.

Can we right call one group “truly” Christian over the other? No.

Listen closely. If "Christian" means one who believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and if two groups have two completely separate gospels of Jesus Christ, then yes, we can definitely say that one group is not Christian.

I have presented you with the gospel straight from Scripture. You have designed your own gospel and tried -- no, that's giving you too much credit. You have assumed that the gospel fits into your own personal worldview, regardless of what it says. You have given no justification for your ridculous -- no quotes needed, really -- interpretation of 1 Cor 15 other than, "I see it differently," and I am tired of waiting for you to offer something better -- it's obviously not coming.

I can't believe I was actually looking forward to this. Why did you waste my time?

--Mike

[This message has been edited by mpartyka (edited January 13, 2001).]
 
Old 01-13-2001, 02:27 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Captain Bloodloss,

However, I will not dispute that the average person of the early Church was taught to believe that Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead in a physical/bodily way. They believed a lot of other things too, like that what we now understand today as epilepsy was demon possession. They did sense one thing: there was something significant about Jesus' life, his death, and the ways in which his legacy lived on.

(Sigh)...this just gets better and better.

First, if the early Christians were taught to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, then you admit that you are completely full of shit when you say that Paul may have meant something else -- who were "the earliest Christians" but the ones to whom Paul himself wrote about a literal resurrection?

Second, even if demon possession was actually epilepsy, you would still have to admit that Jesus healed epilepsy with but a touch. (Demon possession is not epilepsy, by the way.)

Last, please at least have the integrity not to keep inferring that maybe you are a Christian. It is so damn obvious you're not that I hate even bringing it up.

--Mike
 
Old 01-13-2001, 02:59 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nomad,

In other words, where in the Bible itself does it say that an individual, working alone, or even together with the Holy Spirit, is able to clearly understand Scripture?

1 John 2:20-27 -- But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also]. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, [even] eternal life. These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I also look to find out where the interpretations of past Christians, who were probably equally blessed with the power of the Spirit fits into the exegesis performed by the modern evangelical.

I consider the interpretations of past Christians to be of identically equal value to the interpretations of present-day evangelicals -- we consider them thoughtfully and compare them against the Scripures, but we do not blindly accept them as truth.

...I do not understand this refusal to consult with the community of believers (both past and currently living).

There is no such "refusal to consult." I myself have read the works of many first century Christians. I simply do not accept their writings as being on equal authority to that of the prophets and apostles (i.e., the Bible), and I am open to the notion that a modern interpretation of the Bible -- modern, not "liberal", mind you -- may be just as or even more accurate than an earlier interpretation.

For example, some first century Christians were of the opinion that sex was basically immoral, that procreation was the only legitimate reason for sex, and that the virgin birth of Jesus was God's way of getting around the inherent immorality of sexual intercourse. I think that this view is inconsistent with Scripture, primarily with 1 Corinthians 7, so I choose to discard the opinion of these particular first century Christians since I believe it conflicts with Scripture. Essentially, I place my own interpretation over theirs.

But what I cannot do, or justify to myself as a Christian, is accept that my wisdom exceeds the Church's wisdom, or that my interpretation should be held in higher standing than that of the Body of believers.

The issue I have is that when I look at a particularly large body of believers like the Roman Catholic Church, nearly all of whom confess belief in Purgatory and indulgences, I see a glaring example of how the body of believers at large can be terribly wrong. These false teachings, and even the doctrines that support them, are simply incorrect for they are flatly contradicted by Scripture. Nevertheless, many people continue to hold to these teachings because of blind obedience to the hierarchy and their placement of Church authority over the authority of Scripture.

My own position is the same as before: the Scripture contains the truth, and the church serves to shed light on the truth. I am not against going to the Church Fathers for help in understanding, just as I am not against going to my favorite radio pastors for help in understanding, but the Scripture itself and the Holy Spirit serve as my ultimate guides.

If a passage of the Bible can legitmately be interpretted in two different ways, and both can be rationally defended (even if they are mutually contradictory interpretations), how do you personally decide which interpretation is the best?

There really may not be a need to decide which is best. For example, the seven days of creation may be literal days or symbolic of epochs. Either way can be rationally defended, but in the end it doesn't really matter.

If you're talking about more fundamental disagreements, like the Arian controversy, then I would say that tradition does have a significant role there. However, as I mentioned with Purgatory, it can't be the ultimate authority -- I've seen so many "rational" defenses of Purgatory it makes my stomach churn, and every one of them is capped off with, "Plus, the Church says so." (I personally think that it's obvious how the divinity of Christ shows through in Scripture, but then, I have a Bible at my fingertips.)

--Mike
 
Old 01-13-2001, 03:39 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nomad,

Remove the teaching authority of the Church, and the only logical conclusion is to leave us arguing with the liberal and the sceptic on the equal footing of human reason alone. Deny that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, and what will become the new pillar?

Nomad, we are the church -- you, me, and all the other believers in Christ. While having an internal organization, the church is not the organization itself -- rather, it is the people filling that organization. As I like to say on Catholic forums, "Take away the Christians, and there is no Church."

You seem to be of the same mind as the Catholics -- Are you sure you're not Catholic? -- who say, "People can read any passage of Scripture any way they want," which is a load of crap. We can't read Scripture "any way we want" any more than we can read "Bush wins Florida" to mean "Nader becomes new president-elect." Words have meaning, and grouped together they have more meaning, and the more words you add the clearer the picture gets. The Bible is itself the whole picture. The church serves to shine light on the picture and make it easier to see, but it can't -- just like an individual can't -- claim to reveal something in the picture that isn't there, like the Catholic Church does with things like Purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation, etc. When it attempts to do this, then it -- just like an individual -- is in error.

Agreed, and the apostles themselves selected their successors, and invested them with the same authority and infallability, leaving them with their clear writings (in the form of the Scriptures both Old and New Testaments) to help guide them.

Clearly I disagree about the investment of infallibility here. Clearly the bishops were given authority, but infalliblity? Not unless you want to define "infallibility" like the Catholics do, which is "infallible over just the big things." (I see later that this is precisely what you do.)

Exactly when did they fall away from the truth and become apostate?

I didn't say "became apostate." What I'm saying is though they still preached the gospel -- that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead -- they were getting speculative about the fine print, and that led to perverse doctrines like the ones we see in the Catholic Church. These doctrines are not the result of "pagan scope creep" -- they are the result of the misguided theologizing of well-meaning Christians in positions of authority.

[As far as quibbling over which errors and where, I'm not going to do that here. Look at the Catholic Church -- where do you think they got their errors?]

But when what they teach DOES line up with what the Bible could say, and all believers everywhere for all of the time up to that point have believed the same thing, is it still possible for the bishops to be wrong?

It is much, much more unlikely -- to the extent that I no longer see reason to entertain the thought -- but it is still possible. The problem I see is that there are a lot of erroneous doctrines floating around that apparently have "always" been taught. That's why Scripture, not the church, is our primary reference. The church is made of people, and people get things wrong, and new people come along who can get things wronger still, but the Bible stays the same.

When did the errors of the Church become so significant as to demonstrate that they were apostate?

Again, we are not talking about "apostasy" here. For all the errors I believe are plainly seen in the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I believe that even they still preach the gospel, albeit in a horribly mangled form. I would never point anyone toward the Catholic Church, I think there are other churches much closer to the whole truth of the gospel than the Catholic Church, but if somebody insisted on going there, I wouldn't stop him, either. Some truth can be better than none.

--Mike
 
Old 01-13-2001, 06:47 PM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Mike, I had written a lengthy response to your last post to me. Why have you chosen to be so mean-spirited? And why do you constanly have to point out that in your "estimation" I am not a Christan? Who really cares?

I had to delete the post because it was written when I was upset, and I said things to you that I don't mean. I'm sorry you feel as you do about me, and think I'm full of shit, and so obviously not a christan and everything else... but I realized I just need to turn the other cheek.

I do think you are a Christian, and even if I had my doubts, I would not disparage your convictions as you have done. I have written in the open forum about how even though we disagree, and even though sometimes things get tense, I respect you, and that you're one of the reasons I keep coming here... but now, well its hard to feel that about you when you take such a hostile position to me.

At any rate, I'm sorry I've made you feel as you do towards me. It was not intentional.... the rest of my words were simply spoken rashly, so I've deleted them.

God bless you, and have a wonderful night,

Andrew

[This message has been edited by Captain Bloodloss (edited January 13, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:23 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.