Man on a solitary island. Would he become a catholic?

[theblueprint_Ni]

There is a certain stigma that accompanies the doctrines of Catholicism in my own eyes. Forgive me, I'm not trying to make an assault on any individual person but express my understanding of what the predominant message of the Bible conveys in contrast to what the Catholic church teaches about grace, salvation and a persons relationship with God. I see little discrepancy between Catholic views of what Christianity is and the Pharisaical outlook of Judaism in the time of Jesus. I know I may sound harsh but I feel strongly about this.

To make for an argument let me pose a hypothetical situation. Let's say a man is set on a solitary island with no other human contact. In his despair he raises his eyes to heaven and ask's, "God, if there is a God, who are you?" And in His providence, He causes a Bible to wash up onto the shores near his feet. He picks it up and begins to read the scripture.

Let me pose a number of questions and comments. I welcome all Catholics to answer and/or rebuttal me. Could this man possibly be saved with the knowledge of the scriptures in his hand without being given the proper understanding and priestly service of the papacy? If he searched the scriptures thoroughly would he come to embrace the role of Mary as it is taught in Catholicism? I seriously doubt that he would believe that after reading the Scriptures and trusting in Jesus Christ and being cleansed from his sin that he would first have to go through a "secondary" cleansing in purgatory. Having been on this Island and not knowing Rome accept through the missionary travels of Paul, would he think he was damned because he could not attend a mass and receive communion? Having read through the entire New Testament would he come to see Mary as a co-redemtrix seeing as how She is not mentioned AT ALL throughout the epistles. If that were truly in God's plan, wouldn't have God made it explicitly clear thoughout the New testament and not just mention her briefly in the Gospels a few times here and there. I'm not undermining the role of Mary as she is shown in the Bible because she is indeed blessed among women to have conceived the Christ in her womb. Would this man think of Peter as the first Pope after reading a couple of lines of Scripture that references his statement of faith as the foundational stone of the church? If Peter was the foundation and the statement of faith was built around Peter, shouldn't have God mentioned through the epistles of Paul(who rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy) a little more about this subject if it was so crucial in the plan of salvation?

What we read in scripture over and over again is: "Through the blood of Christ..", "In the name of the Lord Jesus...", "By faith in the Lord Jesus who cleanses us...", Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, the blood, the blood, the blood. I see a message that is consistently repeated and not just from book to book but from chapter to chapter and passage to passage.

Would this man begin to pray to saints or the mother who delivered Jesus into this world? I do not think that he would see the evidence of scripture leading him to think that praying to men who were created by God was instructed. I think that he would be compelled to speak directly to the Father through the Son who tore the veil and exposed the holy of holies for all men who would believe to enter into. If a man had nothing else but the scriptures, would he see catholicism that is engulfed in extra-biblical concepts as the church that God had clearly explained in the Bible?

It is obvious where I stand on this, but to any catholic who is well versed in scripture, I would strongly desire to see a convincing rebuttal to the man on a solitary island.

[Adam]

There is a certain stigma that accompanies the doctrines of Catholicism in my own eyes. Forgive me, I'm not trying to make an assault on any individual person but express my understanding of what the predominant message of the Bible conveys in contrast to what the Catholic church teaches about grace, salvation and a persons relationship with God. I see little discrepancy between Catholic views of what Christianity is and the Pharisaical outlook of Judaism in the time of Jesus. I know I may sound harsh but I feel strongly about this.

To make for an argument let me pose a hypothetical situation. Let's say a man is set on a solitary island with no other human contact. In his despair he raises his eyes to heaven and ask's, "God, if there is a God, who are you?" And in His providence, He causes a Bible to wash up onto the shores near his feet. He picks it up and begins to read the scripture.

Interesting idea for a thread, tbN, and I commend you for it.
You may need to set parameters on certain details. Is it a 66-book Protestant Bible, or does it have the extra Old Testament books variously used by the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, or Eastern Orthodox? You are probably aiming at just a choice between Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism, so the fairest provision might be for the original Protestant Bible that included the Apocrypha in the middle as separate section. This would give the man a chance to see the books the RC accept as canonical, but without a compulsion upon him to accept these as equal to the proto-canonical books.
Which English version? There are tendentious Protestant versions with Calvinistic notes, such as the 16th Century Geneva Bible. The Scofield Bible shoves one toward Dispensationalism. All Roman Catholic Bibles have notes in greater or lesser degrees leading towards their viewpoint. I assume you would prefer a Bible with no doctrinal notes, like the King James Version you probably prefer. If this man is young, however, and not raised from childhood in the difficulties of KJV meanings of words (like "conversation", whose meaning has reversed), he would not be able to read it with any comprehension. There is a good choice, however, a Protestant version originally now heralded by (conservative) Roman Catholics, the Revised Standard Version from the 1940's. There is a Common Bible printing of it that includes all books recognized as canonical by some ancient Church body, and a Roman Catholic edition. Flip a coin, I guess, as to which to allow our man on the island.

Let me pose a number of questions and comments. I welcome all Catholics to answer and/or rebut me. Could this man possibly be saved with the knowledge of the scriptures in his hand without being given the proper understanding and priestly service of the papacy? If he searched the scriptures thoroughly would he come to embrace the role of Mary as it is taught in Catholicism? I seriously doubt that he would believe that after reading the Scriptures and trusting in Jesus Christ and being cleansed from his sin that he would first have to go through a "secondary" cleansing in purgatory. Having been on this Island and not knowing Rome except through the missionary travels of Paul, would he think he was damned because he could not attend a mass and receive communion? Having read through the entire New Testament would he come to see Mary as a co-redemtrix seeing as how She is not mentioned AT ALL throughout the epistles. If that were truly in God's plan, wouldn't have God made it explicitly clear thoughout the New testament and not just mention her briefly in the Gospels a few times here and there. I'm not undermining the role of Mary as she is shown in the Bible because she is indeed blessed among women to have conceived the Christ in her womb. Would this man think of Peter as the first Pope after reading a couple of lines of Scripture that references his statement of faith as the foundational stone of the church? If Peter was the foundation and the statement of faith was built around Peter, shouldn't have God mentioned through the epistles of Paul(who rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy) a little more about this subject if it was so crucial in the plan of salvation?
I am not a priest and not even a Roman Catholic since 1992 (but you did *not* specify *Roman* Catholic, an omission you may want to correct), but I think I can tell you that all your concerns here are misdirected. You may be under the misapprehension that Roman Catholics cannot be "saved", or grudgingly admit that just Charismatic Catholics have been born again. No orthodox Roman Catholic priest (plenty of unthinking lay people likely enough) would tell you that our islander needs any of that to become a Christian in good standing. Although Baptists, Lutherans, and Church of Christ people would tell you that he can't be saved because there is no one to baptize him, Roman Catholics would quickly assure you that he can be saved by the Baptism of Desire. He would learn from the Bible to want to be baptized and willing to accept it if offered, and that's sufficient.
Since the Islander has no priest to tell him that he must believe in Mary and the papacy, no such beliefs would be expected of him. He would have more trouble with many Protestants who would tell him that he must come up on his own with the Sinner's Prayer or some such recognition of his own unworthiness, his faith in Jesus alone for his salvation, and acceptance of the whole Bible as inerrant and literally true. Without preachers or other believers to coach him, he would probably retain science and history he had earlier learned and just adapt the Bible as seemed necessary to fit in.

What we read in scripture over and over again is: "Through the blood of Christ..", "In the name of the Lord Jesus...", "By faith in the Lord Jesus who cleanses us...", Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, the blood, the blood, the blood. I see a message that is consistently repeated and not just from book to book but from chapter to chapter and passage to passage.

Would this man begin to pray to saints or the mother who delivered Jesus into this world? I do not think that he would see the evidence of scripture leading him to think that praying to men who were created by God was instructed. I think that he would be compelled to speak directly to the Father through the Son who tore the veil and exposed the holy of holies for all men who would believe to enter into. If a man had nothing else but the scriptures, would he see catholicism that is engulfed in extra-biblical concepts as the church that God had clearly explained in the Bible?

It is obvious where I stand on this, but to any catholic who is well versed in scripture, I would strongly desire to see a convincing rebuttal to the man on a solitary island.
Again, tbN, any Roman Catholic priest would probably accept your logic on all this and look upon our Islander as a good Christian, albeit not conventionally Catholic, if he basically believes the Bible and acts accordingly.
The bigger picture, however, is that the Islander would not come out of this particularly Protestant, either. He would certainly gather that Jesus is the focus of the Bible, and might build his faith around what Jesus taught. He might find Paul unfathomable, and put that aside as something someone needs to explain to him. Jesus tended to be more direct, however. John 6 clearly shows that Jesus taught that his body in the eucharist was specially holy above all else. The entirety of the Synoptic Gospels seems to be a severe training course in how to teach the gospel. Our Islander may decide he must totally devote himself to the gospel when rescued, starting a new mendicant order like St. Francis. He may think he could compromise that down to joining in some established monastic order or becoming a priest. He would know, of course, from John 20:23 that in addition to ministering the eucharist he could then forgive men their sins. Or less radically, he may realize that Jesus was teaching such rigorism only to his special disciples, so expect him to look to join a church that has people specially set apart for holiness. He will thus choose between Roman Catholicism, one of the Eastern churches like the Orthodox, or an Anglicanism that honors monks and nuns. He would have left the island quite confused about the nature of the after-life, so he would tend towards some doctrine that left many possibilities open. He would likely choose Roman Catholicism here, with its doctrine of Purgatory even open to reincarnation, if he had decided the Bible taught that. Faith vs. works, soul vs. spirit, it's all very complicated, and our Islander would steer away from Evangelicalism's teaching that it's all about faith or the Adventist-JW-Mormon spectrum that it's all about works. With Roman Catholicism covering all the basics, he would likely be persuadable by a priest to accept the details about Mary, the saints, and the papacy.
ibN, just so you will realize that the above is not just theoretical web-spinning, it applies almost totally to my own life. At age 18 I emerged from agnosticism and started considering whether to rejoin the Methodist Church in which I was raised, or whether focusing on what Jesus taught meant that I must become Roman Catholic. As portrayed in the prior paragraph, all the basics inclined me to become Roman Catholic, though I hoped for a while that Eastern Orthodoxy or the Episcopal Church would be easier alternatives. I was baptized at age 27 in 1969 into the Roman Catholic Church.
From 1992 to 2004 I switched to the Episcopal Church. I plan soon to join the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I still consider myself Catholic, however, and would readily rejoin if the Pope would renounce the false doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the concomitant error of the Immaculate Conception. (The Assumption of the Virgin Mary may be an acceptable belief, but like all dogmas pronounced throughout history, the attached anathemas must be removed or considered dead letters.)
Adam

[theblueprint_Ni]

Interesting idea for a thread, tbN, and I commend you for it.
You may need to set parameters on certain details. Is it a 66-book Protestant Bible, or does it have the extra Old Testament books variously used by the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, or Eastern Orthodox? If this man is young, however, and not raised from childhood in the difficulties of KJV meanings of words (like "conversation", whose meaning has reversed), he would not be able to read it with any comprehension. There is a good choice, however, a Protestant version originally now heralded by (conservative) Roman Catholics, the Revised Standard Version from the 1940's. There is a Common Bible printing of it that includes all books recognized as canonical by some ancient Church body, and a Roman Catholic edition. Flip a coin, I guess, as to which to allow our man on the island.

You've pointed out some fine details that I failed to specify. I was thinking in a very broad sense but what you mention is, now that I think of the micro processes involved, very influencial. So let me set them as follows:

Lets allow a copy of the 1611 Authorized King James version w/o commentary, with perhaps cross referencing in the margins, washed onto the shores. Let's also assume that he is fluent in 16th century new english.


I am not a priest and not even a Roman Catholic since 1992 (but you did *not* specify *Roman* Catholic, an omission you may want to correct), but I think I can tell you that all your concerns here are misdirected. You may be under the misapprehension that Roman Catholics cannot be "saved", or grudgingly admit that just Charismatic Catholics have been born again. No orthodox Roman Catholic priest (plenty of unthinking lay people likely enough) would tell you that our islander needs any of that to become a Christian in good standing. Although Baptists, Lutherans, and Church of Christ people would tell you that he can't be saved because there is no one to baptize him, Roman Catholics would quickly assure you that he can be saved by the Baptism of Desire. He would learn from the Bible to want to be baptized and willing to accept it if offered, and that's sufficient.
Since the Islander has no priest to tell him that he must believe in Mary and the papacy, no such beliefs would be expected of him. He would have more trouble with many Protestants who would tell him that he must come up on his own with the Sinner's Prayer or some such recognition of his own unworthiness, his faith in Jesus alone for his salvation, and acceptance of the whole Bible as inerrant and literally true. Without preachers or other believers to coach him, he would probably retain science and history he had earlier learned and just adapt the Bible as seemed necessary to fit in.

I happen to be a southern baptist but before anything else, whenever it is asked of me, I am a Christian before I'm a baptist. I happen to be a member of the southern baptist denomination because this specific church teaches what I believe to be sound doctrine and not because it's baptist. I don't even like much to be aligned with a particular denomination but if any at all and if all southern baptist churches taught the same doctrine, then let me be a baptist. After all, John was a baptist......that's my joke for today...ahem. I would also say, and my church would agree, that this man can be saved without any formal works involved. Water baptism is always an issue but so long as he desires it and if anyone else were present he would jump at the opportunity then that's good enough so I agree with you in this. As for the sinners prayer, I absolutely believe that he needs to recognize that he is a sinner and needs to confess before God that he needs His salvation. Whether by his tongue or in his heart it doesn't matter, so long as he knows he needs Jesus and God knows his earnest desire to receive it. I think that by this man reading the NT as well as the OT he can surely realize by the moving of the Spirit and the beckoning of his conscience that he is, without a doubt, a sinner in need of God's grace.

In one thing, Adam, I disagree. Supposing that he was instilled with *secular* science and pertained to a *secular* perspective on history, I think that by reading the Bible and believing it's words he would draw a different conclusion. Let's believe also that this man is not alone in reading the scriptures for himself, with his just his own mind but the Spirit of God is working with him and also that this man is not resisting the Holy Spirit but wants to become a Christian. Would this mean he will receive an infallible interpretation of scripture? No, I am most certainly not implying that, but he would receive a supernatural revealing of God's word as we are all supernaturally exposed to God's grace and regeneration. What I'm getting that is this: supposing that he had a secular education in "science" which almost entirely revolves around the ape to man evolution plan, then he would be forced to reconsider that science as a source of truth. We have something in common, Adam. When I was 18, I too was agnostic(atheist in some circles) and was raised almost exclusively secular but when I came to know God I was forced to re-evaluate my beliefs of that time which included the denial of God and ALL spirits(angels, demons, ect..). As contrary as it seemed, the Spirit of God was working in me and I soon fully and whole heartedly rejected macro evolution and fully accepted Adam, Eve, Satan, and the garden of Eden. But this is where it gets tricky. At this point you have to wrestle with the subject of the inerrancy of scripture. So not only would he question his former education in science but he would have to consider that the vantage point of history in which he was taught might have been grounded in much fallacy.

Again, tbN, any Roman Catholic priest would probably accept your logic on all this and look upon our Islander as a good Christian, albeit not conventionally Catholic, if he basically believes the Bible and acts accordingly.
The bigger picture, however, is that the Islander would not come out of this particularly Protestant, either. He would certainly gather that Jesus is the focus of the Bible, and might build his faith around what Jesus taught. He might find Paul unfathomable, and put that aside as something someone needs to explain to him. Jesus tended to be more direct, however. John 6 clearly shows that Jesus taught that his body in the eucharist was specially holy above all else. The entirety of the Synoptic Gospels seems to be a severe training course in how to teach the gospel. Our Islander may decide he must totally devote himself to the gospel when rescued, starting a new mendicant order like St. Francis. He may think he could compromise that down to joining in some established monastic order or becoming a priest. He would know, of course, from John 20:23 that in addition to ministering the eucharist he could then forgive men their sins. Or less radically, he may realize that Jesus was teaching such rigorism only to his special disciples, so expect him to look to join a church that has people specially set apart for holiness. He will thus choose between Roman Catholicism, one of the Eastern churches like the Orthodox, or an Anglicanism that honors monks and nuns. He would have left the island quite confused about the nature of the after-life, so he would tend towards some doctrine that left many possibilities open. He would likely choose Roman Catholicism here, with its doctrine of Purgatory even open to reincarnation, if he had decided the Bible taught that. Faith vs. works, soul vs. spirit, it's all very complicated, and our Islander would steer away from Evangelicalism's teaching that it's all about faith or the Adventist-JW-Mormon spectrum that it's all about works. With Roman Catholicism covering all the basics, he would likely be persuadable by a priest to accept the details about Mary, the saints, and the papacy.
ibN, just so you will realize that the above is not just theoretical web-spinning, it applies almost totally to my own life. At age 18 I emerged from agnosticism and started considering whether to rejoin the Methodist Church in which I was raised, or whether focusing on what Jesus taught meant that I must become Roman Catholic. As portrayed in the prior paragraph, all the basics inclined me to become Roman Catholic, though I hoped for a while that Eastern Orthodoxy or the Episcopal Church would be easier alternatives. I was baptized at age 27 in 1969 into the Roman Catholic Church.
From 1992 to 2004 I switched to the Episcopal Church. I plan soon to join the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I still consider myself Catholic, however, and would readily rejoin if the Pope would renounce the false doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the concomitant error of the Immaculate Conception. (The Assumption of the Virgin Mary may be an acceptable belief, but like all dogmas pronounced throughout history, the attached anathemas must be removed or considered dead letters.)
Adam

Haha, yes I also agree that he might find Paul to be "full of new wine" at some points. I would not expect him to come out to be a modern protestant either. But in this coming part I will just come out and say it; if after being under no restriction of time and urgency on this island and in strict dedication in reading and meditating on the word of God and he came to believe that reincarnation might be in God's plan, he would not be welcome to teach in my church nor would I confess him as a brother but a heretic and a teacher of fables. I would cut him a break if he was a new believer and *wrestling with reincarnation* or just ignorant of the scriptures then I would be much obliged to open the scriptures to him and see if God will work in Him. So I strongly disagree that the Bible leaves open anything other than being given one chance on earth as it says in Heb. 9:27 and also in the account of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16. I don't think he could be persuaded to believe in the communication with ANY of the passed, save the Lord Jesus, after having read 1 Tim. 2:5. I don't think that the bible is compatible with the strange doctrines of Catholicism. And yes, I have been referring to Roman Catholicism but most of the doctrine that is common among all catholics is what I believe the Bible to disagree with. I think that Catholics can be saved, yes indeed, born again believers and be catholic. I also believe that people within the new age movement under the guise of flagrant pentacostalism can be saved as well even though they may be horribly mislead. But I don't believe that somebody who adheres to the doctrine that one must believe that Mary is a co-redemtrix with Christ is saved. I don't believe that somebody who believes that Jesus is really Micheal the archangel is saved. They may have a respect for Mary as taught in Catholicism but not totally agree with the assumed doctrines that accompany it.

Personal experiences with God does say alot about what we believe. The first church I looked into was Catholicism but it didn't seem right from the very beginning. One of the minor things I have against the Catholic church is referring to the church as "her". I know we are the bride of Christ, but the church is the body of Christ as well and making the church out to be a feminine entity seems to turn the spotlight more toward feminine attributes and lean more toward Mary as the mother of God. I see her as the blessed deliverer of the Flesh of Christ not the "Mother of God".

966"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things...

975 "We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ"

The man stranded on this island who, if he is rescued, has searched the scriptures day in and day out will, when he is confronted with doctrine such as this, frantically look for the evidence that would plainly say in the inspired word of God that Mary is the new Eve, Immaculate, preserved from original sin, and being exalted by the Lord as the Queen(upercase title given only in reference to God in the Bible) of all things. To his dismay, the only place he will find that is in the Catholic catechism, a man made set of doctrine. I think that he would find more evidence for speaking in the gibberish that charismatic pentacostals perform in. But ultimately I think that every denomination will confuse him in one way or another, but I believe moreso from the Catholic church.

[Constantine]

Actually I think the man would remain agnostic. If you're stuck on a deserted Island and out of no where a book just washes on to shore.....what is going to make you believe that the book is the Inspired Word of God?

Ok now that my nitpicking is out of the way....

Lets allow a copy of the 1611 Authorized King James version w/o commentary, with perhaps cross referencing in the margins, washed onto the shores. Let's also assume that he is fluent in 16th century new english.

Wow. I can't imagine why you would pick that particular version of the Bible. Oh wait now I see why:

I happen to be a southern baptist.....

:lol:

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

But in all seriousness I think that the man would probably not be what we would call Protestant or Roman Catholic. I think he would be somewhere in between, but most likely he would be alot closer to catholic than Protestant. I use the small "c" because in that I include Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglicans.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Actually I think the man would remain agnostic. If you're stuck on a deserted Island and out of no where a book just washes on to shore.....what is going to make you believe that the book is the Inspired Word of God?

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Romans 7:9
I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

As Christians, we know that the Bible is the word of God. Before we believed, what convinced us otherwise that this was indeed the word of God unless the Spirit of God leads us to believe that? The same would be for this man. The Holy Spirit tells us it's the word of God.

[Anoetos]

I think if he had a decent intelligence Paul would not be at all unintelligible and after reading, praying, and reading some more he'd end up a conservative Presbyterian.

[BoundWill]

Wonderful question. This brings up a question in my mind, however. I'm wondering about the role of the PREACHED Word in this case. I think of Paul's comments about "how can people hear without a preacher?" I guess you could say that the Scripture would be his/her preacher, but there's a definite chance that the message could be missed. It may just turn out to be a nice storybook to pass the time. If there is no one to proclaim "This is for you!", will he/she believe it?

[theblueprint_Ni]

Sorry, most of my energy here is being focused in other threads, more specifically in eschatology.

I think overall if the man on this island who speaks the exact language of the book given to him and sees it as a mere story then he has hardened his heart and resists the Holy Spirit. He wouldn't be innocent just because nobody can "teach" him because if he read the Bible enough, he would learn a great deal. Most people who call themselves Christians say they don't understand the Bible so they don't read it. But it's because they don't read it enough to understand what it's saying. You have to read it even if you don't understand it at first and the Spirit of God will bring to light the message in the scriptures. The Spirit testifies to the truthfulness of the word of God so his rejection of the testimony as provided in the scriptures would be on his own head and not on God's inability to provide him with a teacher. The Holy Spirit is the teacher ultimately.

[His child]

Quote:

"Since the Islander has no priest to tell him that he must believe in Mary and the papacy, no such beliefs would be expected of him. He would have more trouble with many Protestants who would tell him that he must come up on his own with the Sinner's Prayer or some such recognition of his own unworthiness, his faith in Jesus alone for his salvation, and acceptance of the whole Bible as inerrant and literally true."

2 Timothy 3:16: (A)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Theo-pneustos - God breathed/spirit ... this would seem to accomodate the element of the Bible being "inerrant and literally true." If a person was to read the Bible as God's Word, then our understanding, his understanding, has to be centered on a passage I trust to be valuable and foundational to what they are reading. This passage would have to shake up our island man ...

[His child]

Quote: "Wonderful question. This brings up a question in my mind, however. I'm wondering about the role of the PREACHED Word in this case. I think of Paul's comments about "how can people hear without a preacher?" I guess you could say that the Scripture would be his/her preacher, but there's a definite chance that the message could be missed. It may just turn out to be a nice storybook to pass the time. If there is no one to proclaim "This is for you!", will he/she believe it?"

The other thought this brings to mind is solitude. We romanticize the activity ... reference to Tom Hanks and Castaway, where a volleyball becomes a confidante. The Holy Spirit does the work, not the person ... if a heart is humble enough to hear the word, from the stars in the sky to a Bible being washed up on the shore ... a person's hunger and willingness to be in the "path of YHWH" will only bring revelation. We can't find Him, He brings us home to Him.

Our Berean style attempts to find Him only fortifies Him in His righteousness. If we knock, he will answer; if we search, He will find. Man has tried to place YHWH in a box, only to find the box is not what we expected ... no box can hold One who is everywhere, and beyond our understanding of time and human understanding. That may be vague for some, but it helps me understand a person who is on an island with no one else to turn to, reading God-breathed words of life to salvation.

Doctirne is man-made to keep people in tow [George Bernard Shaw]. The Word of God has Spirit, and no need of doctrine as we define it. People need doctrine to try to understand the discipline of discipleship.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Quote: "Wonderful question. This brings up a question in my mind, however. I'm wondering about the role of the PREACHED Word in this case. I think of Paul's comments about "how can people hear without a preacher?" I guess you could say that the Scripture would be his/her preacher, but there's a definite chance that the message could be missed. It may just turn out to be a nice storybook to pass the time. If there is no one to proclaim "This is for you!", will he/she believe it?"

The other thought this brings to mind is solitude. We romanticize the activity ... reference to Tom Hanks and Castaway, where a volleyball becomes a confidante. The Holy Spirit does the work, not the person ... if a heart is humble enough to hear the word, from the stars in the sky to a Bible being washed up on the shore ... a person's hunger and willingness to be in the "path of YHWH" will only bring revelation. We can't find Him, He brings us home to Him.

Our Berean style attempts to find Him only fortifies Him in His righteousness. If we knock, he will answer; if we search, He will find. Man has tried to place YHWH in a box, only to find the box is not what we expected ... no box can hold One who is everywhere, and beyond our understanding of time and human understanding. That may be vague for some, but it helps me understand a person who is on an island with no one else to turn to, reading God-breathed words of life to salvation.

Doctirne is man-made to keep people in tow [George Bernard Shaw]. The Word of God has Spirit, and no need of doctrine as we define it. People need doctrine to try to understand the discipline of discipleship.

I agree and thankyou for that insight His child. The original intent of this post was to speculate on whether or not he would become a Catholic or even some other denomination in Christianity. I gave this hypothetical creation a spirit of acceptance to the gospel and a willingness to convert and submit to the will of God. So, if I may steer this ship back on course, how do you think he would react to the Pope or intercessory prayer or purgatory? But to add a bit more spice in this mix, let's also say that in God's providence an exhaustive and complete concordance washed up shore so that he could do some in-depth study of God's word in it's purest(at least as pure as we can recieve it) form. Truly, this man would be without the influence of two thousand years of Christian theological war. We all have this influence but I hope this situation can perhaps help release us(me too) from what might be fallace doctrine in our own beliefs.

[His child]

This might be considered hetero-doxical, but my thoughts are quite simple on this person who has become unfettered by the "prison of civilization" ... I don't think he would look at the complexities of doctrine. He would look at the Word of God and make his choice to believe or not believe.

YHWH desires us to worship him in spirit and in truth. Without people to argue their case, I think many of the "important" aspects of Calvinism, Catholicism, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheranism, etc., doctrine would be truly unimportant to him. You have to hear arguments to realize they are important aspects to other people.

If he is saved from the island, it then becomes a matter of how he hears "experts' " assessment of each doctrine. I have been studying the Word since I was 24 (wow, I just realized that is half my life, PTL), and don't feel any of the labels fit me appropriately. The biases we are brought up with affect our understanding of the Word. I believe that is why Christ says we must come to Him with the heart and belief of a little one...

Isaac Newton details his study of Revelations as a worthy apologist for historicist/preterist ... Scofield provides an interesting case for (I think, off the top of my head) dispensationalism, MacArthur does an excellent apologetics for the millenial reign.

It is wonderful to think that YHWH, in His infinite wisdom, would have this person come forth as a believer who would continue to study, and realize that a lifetime of study will bring the humility to understand the stranded island survivor is simply ... His child.

So to specifically answer your question about papal infallacy, doctrinal war, I would simply say, this person would probably look for the fruit people bear concerning their works!

Just MHO :smile:

[BoundWill]

Let me throw another wrench into the mix. What translation is washing on shore? Is he getting the NASB, the NRSV, the NIV, the NLT? I can think of plenty of reasons why he could come to radically different conclusions about God and faith just based on those different translations. Now, if he got Hebrew and Greek lexicons and the original Hebrew and Greek texts.......

Stop that, it's silly. (c) Monty Python :lol:

[spiritmech]

This is the stupidest question I've ever seen. By definition, he would already be dislocated from the traditions and communion of other fellow Christians. Therefore, all he would be able to learn would have to be in the Bible.

Listen, if you're going to try to prove something, please don't make it a tautology from the very beginning.

It's like me saying: a man washes ashore on an island of Catholics, who don't know how to read (except for the priest, the scribe, and the town fool) and only have one copy of the New Testament in their language. Would he become a Protestant?

sm

[Jezz]

There is a certain stigma that accompanies the doctrines of Catholicism in my own eyes. Forgive me, I'm not trying to make an assault on any individual person but express my understanding of what the predominant message of the Bible conveys in contrast to what the Catholic church teaches about grace, salvation and a persons relationship with God. I see little discrepancy between Catholic views of what Christianity is and the Pharisaical outlook of Judaism in the time of Jesus. I know I may sound harsh but I feel strongly about this.

To make for an argument let me pose a hypothetical situation. Let's say a man is set on a solitary island with no other human contact. In his despair he raises his eyes to heaven and ask's, "God, if there is a God, who are you?" And in His providence, He causes a Bible to wash up onto the shores near his feet. He picks it up and begins to read the scripture.

Let me pose a number of questions and comments. I welcome all Catholics to answer and/or rebuttal me. Could this man possibly be saved with the knowledge of the scriptures in his hand without being given the proper understanding and priestly service of the papacy? If he searched the scriptures thoroughly would he come to embrace the role of Mary as it is taught in Catholicism? I seriously doubt that he would believe that after reading the Scriptures and trusting in Jesus Christ and being cleansed from his sin that he would first have to go through a "secondary" cleansing in purgatory. Having been on this Island and not knowing Rome accept through the missionary travels of Paul, would he think he was damned because he could not attend a mass and receive communion? Having read through the entire New Testament would he come to see Mary as a co-redemtrix seeing as how She is not mentioned AT ALL throughout the epistles. If that were truly in God's plan, wouldn't have God made it explicitly clear thoughout the New testament and not just mention her briefly in the Gospels a few times here and there. I'm not undermining the role of Mary as she is shown in the Bible because she is indeed blessed among women to have conceived the Christ in her womb. Would this man think of Peter as the first Pope after reading a couple of lines of Scripture that references his statement of faith as the foundational stone of the church? If Peter was the foundation and the statement of faith was built around Peter, shouldn't have God mentioned through the epistles of Paul(who rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy) a little more about this subject if it was so crucial in the plan of salvation?

What we read in scripture over and over again is: "Through the blood of Christ..", "In the name of the Lord Jesus...", "By faith in the Lord Jesus who cleanses us...", Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, the blood, the blood, the blood. I see a message that is consistently repeated and not just from book to book but from chapter to chapter and passage to passage.

Would this man begin to pray to saints or the mother who delivered Jesus into this world? I do not think that he would see the evidence of scripture leading him to think that praying to men who were created by God was instructed. I think that he would be compelled to speak directly to the Father through the Son who tore the veil and exposed the holy of holies for all men who would believe to enter into. If a man had nothing else but the scriptures, would he see catholicism that is engulfed in extra-biblical concepts as the church that God had clearly explained in the Bible?

It is obvious where I stand on this, but to any catholic who is well versed in scripture, I would strongly desire to see a convincing rebuttal to the man on a solitary island.
Hey blueprint,

Interesting topic, and welcome to TWeb.

I have to mostly agree with the comments that Constantine and spiritmech have already made. But I have a question to ask you:

In the Bible, we see lots of examples of people praying to God and asking for guidance, and receiving it. In most of these cases, the form that the guidance took was an angel or a dream or a vision. We do not see a single example of God answering a prayer by causing a 1611 KJV to miraculously wash up on their doorstep.

My question for you is: if a 1611 KJV is the most effective way of teaching people what they need to know about true religion, then why didn't God hand them out in response to the prayers of the people in the Bible - instead of sending them angels, dreams, or visions?

[Hail Mary]

To make for an argument let me pose a hypothetical situation. Let's say a man is set on a solitary island with no other human contact. In his despair he raises his eyes to heaven and ask's, "God, if there is a God, who are you?" And in His providence, He causes a Bible to wash up onto the shores near his feet. He picks it up and begins to read the scripture.

Let's continue the hypothetical situation.

Our lone island occupant becomes versant in scripture, and now cries: "God, if there is a God, why should I believe this book?" And in His providence, He causes the writings of Augustine to wash up onto the shores near his feet. He picks it up and begins to read:

"Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so"

Understanding slowly creeps into the man's soul, and he becomes a candidate for conversion by desire.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Hey blueprint,

Interesting topic, and welcome to TWeb.

I have to mostly agree with the comments that Constantine and spiritmech have already made. But I have a question to ask you:

In the Bible, we see lots of examples of people praying to God and asking for guidance, and receiving it. In most of these cases, the form that the guidance took was an angel or a dream or a vision. We do not see a single example of God answering a prayer by causing a 1611 KJV to miraculously wash up on their doorstep.

My question for you is: if a 1611 KJV is the most effective way of teaching people what they need to know about true religion, then why didn't God hand them out in response to the prayers of the people in the Bible - instead of sending them angels, dreams, or visions?

People in the Bible didn't have the full revelation of scripture. From Genesis to Revelation we have it all, complete and full. In Luke 16:31, Abraham to the rich man, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise form the dead." I'm not saying that God couldn't use a vision, an angel, a dream, but these things are not something that we all have in common. We all have the scriptures in common and most people get saved from the testimony of scripture, not visions and dreams. God provided the completion of scripture so I don't see why he would induce a vision or send an angel. Plus, with a bible, he can study every day. Most people that receive visions in these days are demonically influenced and outside what the Bible teaches. The scriptures are complete, so God has no new revelation to be recorded as scripture. Also, I chose the KJV 1611 because all english translations before that time were illegal and the common people were forced to listen to scripture filtered though the mouth of another man. If I was feeling really protestant, I would have chosen the Geneva Bible but I thought the KJV 1611 was a good middle choice considering it was written under the influence of the heirarchal church. Maybe you might have chosen a different version but I think it to be reasonable. You probably weren't talking about what version would be the best witness but would a Bible in general be the best witness but I thought I would give an explanation for that version anyways.

I'll be frank, I don't think Catholics hold the Bible in the same esteem as *most* protestants. We revere the scriptures above every word of man, whereas *most* Catholics will trust in the word of the Pope over the word of God. If they(again, *most*) see something in the scriptures that contradicts *any* of the Popes, they will count everything else in error besides the Pope since the Pope's explanation on biblical issues are infallible. So, this is my way to challenge doctrine and especially that of Catholicism because a lot of it is beyond Biblical reason or largely unsupported by scripture.


This is the stupidest question I've ever seen. By definition, he would already be dislocated from the traditions and communion of other fellow Christians. Therefore, all he would be able to learn would have to be in the Bible.

That's the point, spiritmech. Given the *inspired* scriptures alone, though not perfect in translation, what would he conclude about what the scriptures teach in contrast to Catholic doctrine. What disturbs me is how you undermine the importance of scripture by implying that the Bible is insufficient in and of itself to express God's will. Tell me where I am wrong(or right) and back it with good reason(i.e. reason from scripture) else don't bother coming to this thread spewing that sattiristic nonsense.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Let's continue the hypothetical situation.

Our lone island occupant becomes versant in scripture, and now cries: "God, if there is a God, why should I believe this book?" And in His providence, He causes the writings of Augustine to wash up onto the shores near his feet. He picks it up and begins to read:

"Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so"

Understanding slowly creeps into the man's soul, and he becomes a candidate for conversion by desire.

In this case, he has already has denied the faith. The scriptures are clear and God breathed. You have just gave this man a spirit to blaspheme by declaring that the Bible itself was not enough testimony. You've set the words of Augustine on a pedestal before the word of God. You just put the words of Augustine in authority over the word of God. Does this man need the words of a sinner to justify the words of the Holy and Most High God? He becomes a canditate for conversion by self-imputing ascension, by making the word of God an object of scrutiny by standard of Augustine when it should be the other way around. If there is ever a way to infuriate a protestant, you've just done it.

[HyperHobbes]

This man would be a Hyper Calvinist.

HHobbes

[Hail Mary]

In this case, he has already has denied the faith. The scriptures are clear and God breathed. You have just gave this man a spirit to blaspheme by declaring that the Bible itself was not enough testimony. You've set the words of Augustine on a pedestal before the word of God. You just put the words of Augustine in authority over the word of God. Does this man need the words of a sinner to justify the words of the Holy and Most High God? He becomes a canditate for conversion by self-imputing ascension, by making the word of God an object of scrutiny by standard of Augustine when it should be the other way around. If there is ever a way to infuriate a protestant, you've just done it.

I can presuppose ANYTHING about this particular lone inhabitant of the island whether it infuriates you or not. I was originally going to post that out of God's providence a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church came floating to his feet, and thus there was no way this man on a solitary island would become a Protestant. This is to point out your hypothetical is silly because of your presuppositions.

We can only rely on the actions God has actually taken, not your silly hypotheticals. God, out of His providence, sent Christ. And Christ did not write the New Testament, Christ established a Church, and his Church authored and protected the New Testament. The Bible is part of the teachings of the Church, not an all inclusive document, nor was it meant to be. That's why the teachings of Augustine are important.

The interesting part of your viewpoint is that since you believe the Bible alone is enough testimony, then there's no way it could have ever been canonized. How do figure out which books should go into the Bible using your beliefs?

[Adam]

This man would be a Hyper Calvinist.

HHobbes
Now to infuriate all of you.
Hyper-Calvinist might be a fine reading of the text, but only if our Islander also realizes that the Bible teaches pre-existence and reincarnation.
Adam

[His child]

Ave-Maria wrote: "We can only rely on the actions God has actually taken, not your silly hypotheticals. God, out of His providence, sent Christ. And Christ did not write the New Testament, Christ established a Church, and his Church authored and protected the New Testament. The Bible is part of the teachings of the Church, not an all inclusive document, nor was it meant to be. That's why the teachings of Augustine are important."

Augustine, while an august "Church father," was under the influences of his upbringing, and stated in the Tale of Two Cities that Cicero feared in the foreknowledge of future things ... We assert both that God knows all things before they come to pass, and that we do by our free will whatsoever we know and feel to be done by us only because we will it. (paraphrase, the whole statement was waaay longer.)

Not to place myself above such a critical, influential patriarch, but I can't find in my Bible where I am a "free" individual ... I am a slave, born in sin and under the dominion of Satan. I am now, thankfully, redeemed and a co-heir with Christ, of the tribe of Judah, a son of YHWH. He has given me orders to be a soldier, an ambassador, etc. through Christ.

Again, I don't see the "freedom" that, as Augustine puts it "there must be nothing depending upon the free exercise of our own wills, for our wills themselves are included in that order of causes ... I do agree with his statement/knowledge that YHWH is indeed in control, and we can't defeat His purpose. He is in control, but we only know what He has shared through Scripture, His inerrant Word.

1. To try to keep YHWH bound by His creation is not what I understand the Word to teach.
2. I don't believe the Church authored and protected the New Testament. It states in 2 Timothy 3:16 that the breath/spirit of God authored the scriptures (Theo-Pneustos), both Old and New.

You might feel this is a silly hypothetical; that is your right and pleasure. I find it as an outstanding way to discuss, from a biblical standpoint, opportunities to see what Scripture says about itself, and how well we do to study and show ourselves approved before God. :smile:

What washes up on shore show our own cultural biases, because we want people to view things our own way! I pray to see things through His way. I think every believer must come to grips that their are offices that need to be filled ...

Ephesians 4:11 - And He (A)gave (B)some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as (C)evangelists, and some as pastors and (D)teachers,

12(E)for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of (F)the body of Christ;

13until we all attain to (G)the unity of the faith, and of the (H)knowledge of the Son of God, to a (I)mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the (J)fullness of Christ.

The end result is to be a mature person, in the fullness of Christ.

Papacy? Callvinist? Molinist? Arminian?

No.

Christ-like.

[Hail Mary]

1. To try to keep YHWH bound by His creation is not what I understand the Word to teach.
2. I don't believe the Church authored and protected the New Testament. It states in 2 Timothy 3:16 that the breath/spirit of God authored the scriptures
(Theo-Pneustos), both Old and New.

There is a reason 2 Timothy 3:16 says theopneustos instead of some variation of authored, don't you think?

You might feel this is a silly hypothetical; that is your right and pleasure. I find it as an outstanding way to discuss, from a biblical standpoint, opportunities to see what Scripture says about itself, and how well we do to study and show ourselves approved before God. :smile:

It would be better as an analogy. All of humanity is the sole island inhabitant. We cry out for God, and he sends Christ, his only begotten Son. (Not the 1611 KJV). One of Christ's earthly works is to found a Church on Petros. He trusted his Church to write the New Testament under his inspiration, and if Christ trusted the Church, that's good enough for me.


....
The end result is to be a mature person, in the fullness of Christ.

Papacy? Callvinist? Molinist? Arminian?

No.

Christ-like.

To be in the fullness of Christ would certainly mandate membership in the Church he founded upon Petros. You have some of the teachings of this Church, but not all.

[spiritmech]

Step 1: Assume Sola Scriptura.
Step 2: Wave hands.
Step 3: Prove Sola Scriptura. QED.

Way to go.
sm

[His child]

There is a reason 2 Timothy 3:16 says theopneustos instead of some variation of authored, don't you think?



It would be better as an analogy. All of humanity is the sole island inhabitant. We cry out for God, and he sends Christ, his only begotten Son. (Not the 1611 KJV). One of Christ's earthly works is to found a Church on Petros. He trusted his Church to write the New Testament under his inspiration, and if Christ trusted the Church, that's good enough for me.



To be in the fullness of Christ would certainly mandate membership in the Church he founded upon Petros. You have some of the teachings of this Church, but not all.

Scripture to be an analogy? I am not that intelligent to make an analogy of something so straight forward from Paul in this letter. An analogy would be a mockery of his explanation of Scripture. Where do you get this idea? I don't understand. If Paul would have meant this to be an analogy ... his words made great pictures in the original language, which Jerome did not have when he did the Vulgate translation, and the translation would have been much cleaner for Latin apologetics.

You will have to explain to me better; I know that many translators have a great problem with this (the following verses from Matthew regarding rock) being a proper name. It depends on your doctrinal stance. I understand that RC's feel that this rock "petra" and Peter "petrōdes" are one and the same. They are similar, from the same root word, but different enough! Many other translators feel the rock being discussed is Christ himself, with the revelation that Peter made in Matthew 16:16 was the foundation, the rock (the revelation that this answer came from YHWH Himself, given to Peter) that the church was built upon.

Peter's Confession of Christ

13(A)Now when Jesus came into the district of (B)Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that (C)the Son of Man is?"
14And they said, "Some say (D)John the Baptist; and others, (E)Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are (F)the Christ, (G)the Son of (H)the living God."

17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, (I)Simon Barjona, because (J)flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18"I also say to you that you are (K)Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (L)Hades will not overpower it.

I am not sure of what you are saying, but this is the knowledge that I have. Much like the mountain built without hands in Daniel's vision, Christ is the only rock that was built without hands, and was perfect enough to have anything built upon it. MHO. As to the variation of theo-pneustos, we can discuss that at great length; the dominion man must take responsibility for that is expressed throughout Scripture ... again, I am not sure what you are saying. I don't see man as the "sole island inhabitant" for numerous reasons.

Blessings to you for your continued effort to study and show yourself approved!

BTW, I am not sure what QED means. Perhaps you will be charitable enought to explain what spiritmech meant!

[Jude3b]

Actually I think the man would remain agnostic. If you're stuck on a deserted Island and out of no where a book just washes on to shore.....what is going to make you believe that the book is the Inspired Word of God?

Ok now that my nitpicking is out of the way....



Wow. I can't imagine why you would pick that particular version of the Bible. Oh wait now I see why:



:lol:

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

But in all seriousness I think that the man would probably not be what we would call Protestant or Roman Catholic. I think he would be somewhere in between, but most likely he would be alot closer to catholic than Protestant. I use the small "c" because in that I include Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglicans.

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God"! It is very likely that the man on the deserted Island who had prayed and asked God to reveal himself, would read the Bible and get saved. He would not be a Catholic or a Protestant. He would be a Christian a disciple of Christ, a member of the church of God - the body of Christ, just like all true Christians are!

Those who see the true New Testament church in Scripture - cannot place loyalty to a religion in first place.

[Hail Mary]

Scripture to be an analogy? I am not that intelligent to make an analogy of something so straight forward from Paul in this letter. An analogy would be a mockery of his explanation of Scripture. Where do you get this idea? I don't understand. If Paul would have meant this to be an analogy ... his words made great pictures in the original language, which Jerome did not have when he did the Vulgate translation, and the translation would have been much cleaner for Latin apologetics.

I was referring to this thread, and the posed hypothetical, this is what would be better as an analogy (not scripture). In other words:

Let's say humanity is set on a solitary planet with no other contacts. In humanity's despair they raise their eyes to heaven and ask, "God, if there is a God, who are you?" And in His providence, He causes Christ to step onto the planet. Christ creates his Church built upon Petros, is later crucified, resurrected, and assends into heaven.

Now we can talk about what God truly did, and not what somone poses in a silly hypothetical. God did not fax down a copy of the 1611 KJV in our despair, he sent his only begotten son. And Christ did not write the 1611 KJV during his earthly works, he created a Church.

BTW, I am not sure what QED means. Perhaps you will be charitable enought to explain what spiritmech meant!

QED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.)

[Adam]

QED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.)
Quod erat demonstratum, i. e.,
That which was to be demonstrated, i. e.,
Proof completed, e. g. for our purposes,
I won, you lost.
("i. e." means "id est" in Latin, but I think of it in English as meaning "in effect", better translated as "that is".)
("e. g." has to do with an example given, the Latin, is "exempli gratia". Latin is one language I never studied, so I think of English substitutes.)
Adam

[BoundWill]

Now to infuriate all of you.
Hyper-Calvinist might be a fine reading of the text, but only if our Islander also realizes that the Bible teaches pre-existence and reincarnation.
Adam

(c) Dr. Evil:

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Where do you get that? I'm actually kind of curious.

[HyperHobbes]

"Now to infuriate all of you."I wasn't going to say it, but I suspected as much.

HHobbes

[Adam]

(c) Dr. Evil:

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Where do you get that? I'm actually kind of curious.
Job 33:23-30 (but try various translations: KJV and derivative versions preserve a stodgy orthodoxy)
Mark 9:11-13. Jesus taught reincarnation.
John 9:1-3. The Pharisees believed in reincarnation, and Jesus did not correct them.
Eph. 1:4,5.
The Old Testament must *presuppose* reincarnation to make sense (the nation of Israel through the millenia, the punishment of the Amalekites 400 years after their transgression).
Without accepting that Paul teaches pre-existence in Eph. 1:4,5, his theology is subject to a Calvinist interpretation that makes God a monster.
Adam

[theblueprint_Ni]

I can presuppose ANYTHING about this particular lone inhabitant of the island whether it infuriates you or not. I was originally going to post that out of God's providence a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church came floating to his feet, and thus there was no way this man on a solitary island would become a Protestant. This is to point out your hypothetical is silly because of your presuppositions.

Yes, I know you can and I didn't expect to remain without conflict when I started this. I welcome your view and I hope you continue to express your thoughts. But, I believe that not only are you wrong, but that the Bible says you're wrong. Is the Catholic Catechism a God breathed document? Is it the direct word of God? The Catholic Catechism *could* have washed up instead and if he believed that he would become a Catholic. The Catechism is not the Bible. Only the Bible is inspired so I have said the Bible. I would quote the direct word of God and prove you wrong but you would quote the words of a man and feel that it holds the same authority as the Bible. You suppose that the Catechism is just as good, if not better, than the Bible itself. The Bible says otherwise.

We can only rely on the actions God has actually taken, not your silly hypotheticals. God, out of His providence, sent Christ. And Christ did not write the New Testament, Christ established a Church, and his Church authored and protected the New Testament. The Bible is part of the teachings of the Church, not an all inclusive document, nor was it meant to be. That's why the teachings of Augustine are important.

This is why I have a problem with Catholicism. The difference is, you believe the church is born through Peter, whereas I believe that the Church is born of God, not Peter, through the testimony of Scripture. Though you may say this is not so and confess Christ, you still believe that a church founded apon anything other than Peter is abominable. Now if you say that I'm wrong about this then tell me if there if there can be a true church of God founded on Christ and the Scriptures and not on Peter.

Christ did write the Bible, He is the incarnate Word of God. It was He who wrote the ten commandments for Moses. The Holy Spirit inerrantly moved the writings of scripture through various prophets and apostles but all in all, Jesus is God and He, the Spirit, and the Father are one in the same.

Deut. 5:4-22
"The LORD talked with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire...(recites ten commandments)...And He wrote them on two tables of stone and gave them to me."

These He wrote with His own hand.

Galatians 1:11
"But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ."

2 Peter 1:20
"knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any privat interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

You are wrong. The Bible isn't a part of the teachings of the church, it is the sole authority of the church. The church was and still is directed by the course of divine Scripture.

2 Tim. 2:16
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equpped for ever good work."

Scripture is both exclusive in authority and inclusive on every subject. It does not fall short to reason the good and evil in every action. Do you have Scripture to back up your claim? Or do you derive your authority from a man?

The interesting part of your viewpoint is that since you believe the Bible alone is enough testimony, then there's no way it could have ever been canonized. How do figure out which books should go into the Bible using your beliefs?

I am well aware of how the Canon came to be, but knowing this, it does not sway me in the least to presume that because a sect of men assembled it, they must also hold the authority over it. The Jews assembled the Old Testament, and do you know what happened to those who put it together? They believed that they held the keys to heaven. They believed that the common man could not understand the Scriptures without their explanations. They wrote and taught from the Talmud, their Catechism, and regarded that man made set of doctrine above the actual word of God. And thus they became the center of religion, not God. They were the Sanhedrin and they Crucified our Lord. The way to God was directed through His scripture and that is what they hindered. I didn't say that the Bible wasn't assembled by the church. The Catholic Bible is revered as God's word in the same way protestant Bible is. Although, the Apocrypha of the Catholic Bible was never honored as the word of God by the Jews or even until the 15th century and shouldn't be honored as such now. Regardless, the Bible is what it is and is agreed by all who know it that it is God's word. You asking such a question leads me to believe that you hold the Bible in contempt. You see the heirarchal structure of authority as such: (1)God (2)Jesus (3)Papacy (4)You. Therefore, if all you had was the Bible, you feel that it is impossible to know God because there is no priest to mediate for you. I see it as the Bible tells me to see it: (1)God (2)Jesus (3)me. You just can't read the Bible and believe it on it's own authority because if you did you would think the same. You first look at the authority of a man to tell you what the Bible says. The Bible teaches one thing and the Catholic church teaches something else. Do you think just because the Catholic church assembled the Canon that it also is held above the Bible? Ultimately it was the Spirit of God that assembled the Bible, not men.

Do you believe that the Bible is held above the Pope or the Pope above the Bible?

[Hail Mary]

Yes, I know you can and I didn't expect to remain without conflict when I started this. I welcome your view and I hope you continue to express your thoughts. But, I believe that not only are you wrong, but that the Bible says you're wrong. Is the Catholic Catechism a God breathed document? Is it the direct word of God? The Catholic Catechism *could* have washed up instead and if he believed that he would become a Catholic. The Catechism is not the Bible. Only the Bible is inspired so I have said the Bible. I would quote the direct word of God and prove you wrong but you would quote the words of a man and feel that it holds the same authority as the Bible. You suppose that the Catechism is just as good, if not better, than the Bible itself. The Bible says otherwise.

Catholics believe Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equals "flowing out from the same divine well-spring." The Catechism of the Catholic Church represents the teachings of both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. So, most everything you're saying about the Catholic belief in the Bible is wrong, which is understandable. However, your also wrong in saying the Bible says it is the sole source of God's inspired word, it does not, so your argument is itself un-Biblical.

You might be suprised to learn that the same Church which canonized the Bible also considered several other works to be inspired, yet they were written too late, or the authorship was in question, so they weren't included in the canon. I Clement is a good example, and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas.

This is why I have a problem with Catholicism. The difference is, you believe the church is born through Peter, whereas I believe that the Church is born of God, not Peter, through the testimony of Scripture. Though you may say this is not so and confess Christ, you still believe that a church founded apon anything other than Peter is abominable. Now if you say that I'm wrong about this then tell me if there if there can be a true church of God founded on Christ and the Scriptures and not on Peter.

Well, when you try to tell me what I believe, you should at least make an effort to characterize it accurately. Or better yet, why don't you let me tell you what I believe in the future? No, we do not believe the Church is 'born' through Peter. The Church was founded upon Peter by Christ. Christ did NOT found his Church on scriptures. (Matthew 16:18)


Scripture is both exclusive in authority and inclusive on every subject. It does not fall short to reason the good and evil in every action. Do you have Scripture to back up your claim? Or do you derive your authority from a man?

Nope... For example, scripture does not include the table of contents of the Bible itself. How do you decide what books to include when you insist that your sole exclusive and inclusive authority is scripture itself?

I am well aware of how the Canon came to be, but knowing this, it does not sway me in the least to presume that because a sect of men assembled it, they must also hold the authority over it.

But wait, how could scripture be the exclusive and all-inclusive authority on every subject for this unidentified 'sect of men' when determining the canon itself? They're clearly operating on extra-scriptural authority here. Don't you agree?

The Jews assembled the Old Testament, and do you know what happened to those who put it together? They believed that they held the keys to heaven. They believed that the common man could not understand the Scriptures without their explanations. They wrote and taught from the Talmud, their Catechism, and regarded that man made set of doctrine above the actual word of God. And thus they became the center of religion, not God. They were the Sanhedrin and they Crucified our Lord. The way to God was directed through His scripture and that is what they hindered. I didn't say that the Bible wasn't assembled by the church. The Catholic Bible is revered as God's word in the same way protestant Bible is. Although, the Apocrypha of the Catholic Bible was never honored as the word of God by the Jews or even until the 15th century and shouldn't be honored as such now. Regardless, the Bible is what it is and is agreed by all who know it that it is God's word. You asking such a question leads me to believe that you hold the Bible in contempt. You see the heirarchal structure of authority as such: (1)God (2)Jesus (3)Papacy (4)You. Therefore, if all you had was the Bible, you feel that it is impossible to know God because there is no priest to mediate for you. I see it as the Bible tells me to see it: (1)God (2)Jesus (3)me. You just can't read the Bible and believe it on it's own authority because if you did you would think the same. You first look at the authority of a man to tell you what the Bible says. The Bible teaches one thing and the Catholic church teaches something else. Do you think just because the Catholic church assembled the Canon that it also is held above the Bible? Ultimately it was the Spirit of God that assembled the Bible, not men.

Wow, now you're telling both Catholics and Jews what we believe, and this time your descriptions are more inaccurate than before. Why don't you leave the description of our beliefs to us? I'm more than happy to explain my beliefs.

On the subject of the deuterocanonicals, (aka the apocrypha) how do you explain the similarity of Orthodox Bibles to Catholic Bibles? Our Churches split in 1054, so how do you explain both of us having the deutero's within our Bible? Actually, the more interesting case is the Ethiopian Orthodox which remained largely independent from the 4th century, and they also include the deuteros.

[His child]

Catholics believe Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equals "flowing out from the same divine well-spring." The Catechism of the Catholic Church represents the teachings of both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. So, most everything you're saying about the Catholic belief in the Bible is wrong, which is understandable. However, your also wrong in saying the Bible says it is the sole source of God's inspired word, it does not, so your argument is itself un-Biblical.

You might be suprised to learn that the same Church which canonized the Bible also considered several other works to be inspired, yet they were written too late, or the authorship was in question, so they weren't included in the canon. I Clement is a good example, and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas.



Well, when you try to tell me what I believe, you should at least make an effort to characterize it accurately. Or better yet, why don't you let me tell you what I believe in the future? No, we do not believe the Church is 'born' through Peter. The Church was founded upon Peter by Christ. Christ did NOT found his Church on scriptures. (Matthew 16:18)




Nope... For example, scripture does not include the table of contents of the Bible itself. How do you decide what books to include when you insist that your sole exclusive and inclusive authority is scripture itself?



But wait, how could scripture be the exclusive and all-inclusive authority on every subject for this unidentified 'sect of men' when determining the canon itself? They're clearly operating on extra-scriptural authority here. Don't you agree?



Wow, now you're telling both Catholics and Jews what we believe, and this time your descriptions are more inaccurate than before. Why don't you leave the description of our beliefs to us? I'm more than happy to explain my beliefs.

On the subject of the deuterocanonicals, (aka the apocrypha) how do you explain the similarity of Orthodox Bibles to Catholic Bibles? Our Churches split in 1054, so how do you explain both of us having the deutero's within our Bible? Actually, the more interesting case is the Ethiopian Orthodox which remained largely independent from the 4th century, and they also include the deuteros.

The Bible was still in Latin at that time, and philologies, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek translations were in the future, the far future. You make a valid point about many Eastern Orthodox churches keeping apocrypha.

: Catholics believe Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equals "flowing out from the same divine well-spring." The Catechism of the Catholic Church represents the teachings of both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. So, most everything you're saying about the Catholic belief in the Bible is wrong, which is understandable. However, your also wrong in saying the Bible says it is the sole source of God's inspired word,

Where, pray tell, is there another source that the Bible says is the "Theo-pneustos?"

: No, we do not believe the Church is 'born' through Peter. The Church was founded upon Peter by Christ. Christ did NOT found his Church on scriptures. (Matthew 16:18)

You didn't respond to this portion of an earlier post I made:

: I understand that RC's feel that this rock "petra" and Peter "petrōdes" are one and the same. They are similar, from the same root word, but different enough! Many other translators feel the rock being discussed is Christ himself, with the revelation that Peter made in Matthew 16:16 was the foundation, the rock (the revelation that this answer came from YHWH Himself, given to Peter) that the church was built upon.

Peter's Confession of Christ

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Once again, the concluding view of many theologians is that it is Peter's confession that the church is built upon, not any one person that took the authority of Christ's body. Flesh and blood did not reveal, but the Father in heaven; that is the Rock, which is Christ Himself.

Most churches have catechesis they teach to the people who desire to confess the same doctrine, to keep orthodoxy in their assembly. Therefore, a study of the catechesis is the litmus test of what religions teach.

You have already stated that

Catholics believe Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equals "flowing out from the same divine well-spring."

History does not portray the results being virtuous. See Eusebius, Origen and Jerome, just to name a few. I am not saying RC's don't believe Christ is their Savior, but many of the tools used to develop believers into orthodoxy have ... traditions that are man made. You must make the decision if Jesus approves, or traditions rule.

[Hail Mary]

The Bible was still in Latin at that time, and philologies, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek translations were in the future, the far future. You make a valid point about many Eastern Orthodox churches keeping apocrypha.

Please inform the Greek Orthodox their Bible was in Latin at this time. (I'm not responsible for any injuries you may incur)

Where, pray tell, is there another source that the Bible says is the "Theo-pneustos?"

Ahh, I see you are cleverly shifting the argument. This is a nice try, His Child, but I'm not the one claiming the Bible says it is the sole source of inspiration or that the Bible contains a listing of all inspired sources.

If you claim the Bible is God's sole source of inspiration, then show me where it states this in the Bible and then explain how the Church predates the Bible.

You didn't respond to this portion of an earlier post I made:

I rarely discuss interpretation of scripture with any Protestant, especially on TWeb. I don't agree with your interpretation, and I don't even agree you have the authority to interpret scripture to your own liking.

Once again, the concluding view of many theologians is that it is Peter's confession that the church is built upon, not any one person that took the authority of Christ's body. Flesh and blood did not reveal, but the Father in heaven; that is the Rock, which is Christ Himself.

Most churches have catechesis they teach to the people who desire to confess the same doctrine, to keep orthodoxy in their assembly. Therefore, a study of the catechesis is the litmus test of what religions teach.

There is a lot of disagreement about this in Protestant circles, no matter how you try to spin it. 'The view of many theologians' would cover just about any Protestant interpretation you could spin up for any set of scriptures.

Again, I don't worry about which group of Protestant theologians has interpreted portions of scripture thusly, and which opposing group has interpreted it in another manner, ad infinitum.

History does not portray the results being virtuous. See Eusebius, Origen and Jerome, just to name a few. I am not saying RC's don't believe Christ is their Savior, but many of the tools used to develop believers into orthodoxy have ... traditions that are man made. You must make the decision if Jesus approves, or traditions rule.

Do you realize the depth of irony I see in the above paragraph? You're using 16th century man made tools (Sola Scriptura) to try and develop believers. My tools are based on the Rock, established by Christ himself.

[theblueprint_Ni]

All quotes in italics have been coped from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Bible - A collection of writings which the Church of God has solemnly recognized as inspired.

The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical "because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church". The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.

The Catholic church admits to the divine nature of the Scriptures.

However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known.

This boggles me. Though consenting to the divine origin of these documents which plainly say what is and is not the truth, the Catholic church still declares that she holds a higher truth that the divine truth should ultimately be filtered through.

To say that the Bible was perfectly clear and sufficient to all was obviously a retort born of desperation, a defiance of experience and common sense.

But the Papacy can because oral tradition has deemed it so. We who are not of ther clergy must be poor and deprived sinners indeed since God cannot reveal Himself to the common man without the *continual* service of a priest. I cannot help but to keep thinking of the Pharisaical religion of Judaism.

And as He preached Himself so He sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith.

They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc. St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings.

The apostles were aware of their own fallibility even after the great commision. Peter was rebuked by Paul for eating with the gentiles and then compelling them to live as the Jews. He was in error and without the inspiration of Paul(who received his revelation by the direct teaching of Christ) to rebuke him, Peter would have been even more decieved by the hypocritical Jews. Peter taught this orally to the gentiles. He was wrong. Oral tradition is fallible because all men are sinners yet suggesting that by the tradition passed down by men, they remain infallible, even after knowing that the Scriptures alone are God breathed; I find this in grave contradiction. The Bible says that these men were divinely instructed by Christ Himself but seeing that when not instructed by Christ and receiving the tradition of men they become subject to fallacy. After merely one generation of the apostles pass, the direct teaching of Christ through the apostles is broken and the traditions of men become vulnerable to corruption from the mind of men. The only inerrant source of correction would then be from the inspired Scriptures themselves.

[His child]

Please inform the Greek Orthodox their Bible was in Latin at this time. (I'm not responsible for any injuries you may incur)



Ahh, I see you are cleverly shifting the argument. This is a nice try, His Child, but I'm not the one claiming the Bible says it is the sole source of inspiration or that the Bible contains a listing of all inspired sources.

If you claim the Bible is God's sole source of inspiration, then show me where it states this in the Bible and then explain how the Church predates the Bible.



I rarely discuss interpretation of scripture with any Protestant, especially on TWeb. I don't agree with your interpretation, and I don't even agree you have the authority to interpret scripture to your own liking.



There is a lot of disagreement about this in Protestant circles, no matter how you try to spin it. 'The view of many theologians' would cover just about any Protestant interpretation you could spin up for any set of scriptures.

Again, I don't worry about which group of Protestant theologians has interpreted portions of scripture thusly, and which opposing group has interpreted it in another manner, ad infinitum.



Do you realize the depth of irony I see in the above paragraph? You're using 16th century man made tools (Sola Scriptura) to try and develop believers. My tools are based on the Rock, established by Christ himself.

I rarely discuss interpretation of scripture with any Protestant, especially on TWeb. I don't agree with your interpretation, and I don't even agree you have the authority to interpret scripture to your own liking.

First of all, I consider myself, like Luther himself did, to be of the catholic faith (although, Luther considered himself Roman Catholic until his death, if I'm not mistaken. He only chose not to follow the papal indulgences and other non-scriptural choices that were coming from the See at that time) that comes for the body of Scripture.

It seems unfortunate that a person so well versed in Scripture would choose to ignore one of the important Scriptural commands that is clearly an exhortation to all children of YHWH.


1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

If you choose not to help me understand these next two items, I am grateful to you for your insight.

1. Please inform the Greek Orthodox their Bible was in Latin at this time. (I'm not responsible for any injuries you may incur)

Well, they don't believe in Papal authority, do they? You are quite correct, their Bible did not come from the Latin version, and their belief system is vastly different, isn't it! Excellent point, though ... 'tis not the Latin version that springs from their tome.

2. I rarely discuss interpretation of scripture with any Protestant, especially on TWeb. I don't agree with your interpretation, and I don't even agree you have the authority to interpret scripture to your own liking


Paul at Berea
10The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Scripture translates itself; if I am to warp Scripture to my own meaning (and many times, until I started to study in the original languages, I did just that ... and am still reaping the consequences of my actions), then I will not only be known by the fruit I bear, my words will come back without the power of YHWH to accomplish what He says He will do, if I worship Him in spirit and truth.

I commend you for being a defender of your faith! It is what we must do to be a servant of the Word. If you choose to decide when and how you will work at being a witness, if you choose to work on what season you will work at being Berean, then I am saddened. Our man on a solitary island would not be able to discuss his understanding of Scripture, much like myself.

As for your assertion about claims Scripture makes about itself,


2"(A)You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

3"Your eyes have seen what the LORD has done in the case of Baal-peor, for all the men who followed Baal-peor, the LORD your God has destroyed them from among you.

4"But you who held fast to the LORD your God are alive today, every one of you.

5"See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it.

6"So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'
32"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

5Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
6Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Also, in discussing rock(s) from Scripture,

29"(A)For You are my lamp, O LORD;
And the LORD illumines my darkness.
30"(B)For by You I can [a]run upon a troop;
By my God I can leap over a wall.
31"(C)As for God, His way is blameless;
(D)The word of the LORD is tested;
(E)He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him.
32"(F)For who is God, besides the LORD?
(G)And who is a rock, besides our God?
33"(H)God is my strong fortress;
And He sets the blameless in His way.

So, I guess it is more than "protestant theologians" who look at YHWH being the rock; Scipture itself puts it rather succintly!

[BoundWill]

Job 33:23-30 (but try various translations: KJV and derivative versions preserve a stodgy orthodoxy)
Mark 9:11-13. Jesus taught reincarnation.
John 9:1-3. The Pharisees believed in reincarnation, and Jesus did not correct them.
Eph. 1:4,5.
The Old Testament must *presuppose* reincarnation to make sense (the nation of Israel through the millenia, the punishment of the Amalekites 400 years after their transgression).
Without accepting that Paul teaches pre-existence in Eph. 1:4,5, his theology is subject to a Calvinist interpretation that makes God a monster.
Adam

Bah. I disagree with that. I checked some of the verses (not all, because I've got work to do). Here's my opinion.

Mark: Elijah is the epitome of prophesy. He's not saying John IS Elijah, rather that John is the one who has come before.
John: there is NOTHING in that passage about reincarnation

Your point was?

[Hail Mary]

The Catholic church admits to the divine nature of the Scriptures.

We 'admit' to the divine nature of the Scriptures? We proclaim the divine nature of Scriptures, we thank God for the divine nature of Scriptures. We even uphold the original Scriptures when Protestants rip out a few books. :hehe:


This boggles me. Though consenting to the divine origin of these documents which plainly say what is and is not the truth, the Catholic church still declares that she holds a higher truth that the divine truth should ultimately be filtered through.

Both you and HisChild really seem to have a problem differentiating between Holy Scripture as divinely inspired, and Holy Scripture as the 'sole' source of divine inspiration. You do understand the Church predates the New Testament, don't you?

[Hail Mary]

It seems unfortunate that a person so well versed in Scripture would choose to ignore one of the important Scriptural commands that is clearly an exhortation to all children of YHWH.


1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Sir, you flatter me, unjustly... :smile:

Yet, I preach the word by referring others to the only divinely appointed interpreter of God's word, the Roman Catholic Church. To fully grasp the meaning of scriptures, I believe you need to embrace the Church. (Do you feel adequately rebuked and encouraged now? :smile: )


Well, they don't believe in Papal authority, do they? You are quite correct, their Bible did not come from the Latin version, and their belief system is vastly different, isn't it! Excellent point, though ... 'tis not the Latin version that springs from their tome.

We seem to have lost our context here. We were discussing the deuteros inclusion in the canon. You said the Bible was in Latin back then, but the deuteros are also included in the Greek Orthodox Bible, so they predated the translation into Latin. So I'm not sure where your going with this subtopic.

But, indeed there are some Greek Churches who believe in Papal authority, they are the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, and if any of the Orthodox are following our conversation I'm sure a comment will be forthcoming.

Scripture translates itself; if I am to warp Scripture to my own meaning (and many times, until I started to study in the original languages, I did just that ... and am still reaping the consequences of my actions), then I will not only be known by the fruit I bear, my words will come back without the power of YHWH to accomplish what He says He will do, if I worship Him in spirit and truth.

You learned Koine Greek and Hebrew? (If so, that is fantastic) Of course, I don't agree that scripture translates itself, but generally I would agree that mistranslations and misunderstandings affect the fruit you bear.

Also, in discussing rock(s) from Scripture,

29"(A)For You are my lamp, O LORD;
And the LORD illumines my darkness.
30"(B)For by You I can [a]run upon a troop;
By my God I can leap over a wall.
31"(C)As for God, His way is blameless;
(D)The word of the LORD is tested;
(E)He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him.
32"(F)For who is God, besides the LORD?
(G)And who is a rock, besides our God?
33"(H)God is my strong fortress;
And He sets the blameless in His way.

So, I guess it is more than "protestant theologians" who look at YHWH being the rock; Scipture itself puts it rather succintly!

I think you make a forceful and elegant point for your belief, and I appreciate your kind approach and your courtesy. If I believed I could interpret scripture perfectly, I might even agree with you.

However, I believe the authority to interpret scripture rests solely on the Catholic Church. Which actually makes my life a lot easier, because now I can go and spend some time with my family, instead of indulging in a discussion of Koine Greek masculine and feminine nouns, their Hebrew equivalents, and then to stones versus boulders versus rocks. :smile:

[Adam]

I also wrote on reincarnation in Church History 201, the "Reincarnation" thread. Also a little in "Hyper-Calvinism" in Theology 201, but what I was mostly developing there was the pre-existence of the soul...er, spirit (by my finer understanding of the trichotomy of the human person).
Adam

[theblueprint_Ni]

I also wrote on reincarnation in Church History 201, the "Reincarnation" thread. Also a little in "Hyper-Calvinism" in Theology 201, but what I was mostly developing there was the pre-existence of the soul...er, spirit (by my finer understanding of the trichotomy of the human person).
Adam

You're stuck on reincarnation, it seems. Is it not appointed for man once to die and then the judgement? Sorry, didn't read your other thread on this subject but I gather from your mention of this eastern thought that you embrace this? I hope not...but if yes, I will be sure to read it.

[Adam]

Not that Hebrews 9:27 again? Don't you know Hebrews was written by a woman, so what authority could it have?
Adam

[theblueprint_Ni]

Not that Hebrews 9:27 again? Don't you know Hebrews was written by a woman, so what authority could it have?
Adam

Well...nobody really knows who wrote it(other than God), but...what? What ARE you saying? :hrm:

[Adam]

Well...nobody really knows who wrote it(other than God), but...what? What ARE you saying? :hrm:
Well, mostly I was teasing Southern Baptists and other conservatives who give a lower place to women in church. (I should talk? I am against women being bishops.)
Still, the basic Protestant idea is that Paul prevails over everybody else, particularly over Jesus, who is regarded as mostly just pulling our chains.
But even Jesus must rate higher in authority than a woman, by the usual misogynistic dogmatics, and Paul did not write Hebrews, and since a woman might have, we had better put Hebrews pretty low in the rankings.
Yes, I am kidding around, Hebrews has the same authority as any other book in the New Testament. Personally I put the words of Jesus above everything else, and I guess I am not completely alone in this odd idea, because there all any number of Bibles out there with Jesus's words in red. Why bother if Jesus has no special authority above any other Bible words?
I'm also saying that any one Bible verse cannot be put above all others that contradict it. Proof-texting putting all verses equal to one another gives us heresies like Seventh Day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and various other Arian and works-righteousness cults.
Adam