The Bereans

[shinbits]

So what do you think is needed along with Scripture?

I don't know if anything else is "needed". Teaching from a good pastor is very helpful, so is fellowship with brethen. But as far as being an absolute necessity to Christianity as a whole, Scripture is necessary the same way the Constitution is necessary to decide what can be legal and what can't.

 

[Standing Up]

Exactly. How do Lutherans, Calvinists, Wesleyans and others feel about naming themselves after men?

Yep, thank goodness there's a few of us Christians

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

First of all, Paul is not writing this for the general church, who he would refer to as 'the saints', or 'brothers'. -snip-

Hey that's my argument that priests aren't needed for eucharist.

1 Cor. 11:2 brethren keep to the ordinances.... eucharist.

Which of us should renew our mind now?

 

[sunlover1]

Hey that's my argument that priests aren't needed for eucharist.

1 Cor. 11:2 brethren keep to the ordinances.... eucharist.

Which of us should renew our mind now?

whoopsy!
Now what?

 

[sunlover1]

Originally Posted by sunlover1

And worse,... a slap in the face of Jesus...
More like a defiant fist held up in pride...
​

ie. the Protestant Rebellion.

They're not rebelling against God
they're campaigning against what they
believe to be rebellion against God.

 

[sunlover1]

Unity in diversity!

Same as protestant denominations!
Unity in diversity.
Now we're getting somewhere!

 

[narnia59]

I didn't say Scripture is the ultimate power. But when it comes to whether or not to accept doctrine, Scripture is the ultimate authority.

And Scripture says this where?

The Bible CLEARLY says they checked the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true.

So...you're wrong.

Whether what Paul said the Scriptures contained was true, or whether what Paul told them they meant was true?

The Bereans, who were able to read and verify Scripture, were considered more noble than those who could read and verify Scripture, yet didn't. So it makes perfect sense.

Try again.

They were considered more noble because they were eager to accept the Gospel. You didn't answer my question. How are Christians supposed to use Scripture as the "ultimate" authority for doctrine if they can't read? Are only the literate to have access to the truth?

You're playing cheep word games, like so many Catholics do. By "ultimate authority", obviously I mean on whether or not to accept a particular doctrine. That's all. Obviously, I don't mean an inanimate book has more authority than a pastor to marry.

Please stop. This is getting sad.

What is sad is what you profess to believe is found nowhere in Scripture. The authority to teach was given to the apostles. They said to hold fast to what they taught whether it was written down or not. There is no Scripture to support your belief.

Scripture also doesn't mention Mary as being sinless, an ever-virgin, or having been assumed into heaven. Maybe you should listen to it.

I have. I've studied all those things, and found the Catholic position, as taught and believed by Catholics, to be perfectly compatible with Scripture.

 

[narnia59]

Hey that's my argument that priests aren't needed for eucharist.

1 Cor. 11:2 brethren keep to the ordinances.... eucharist.

Which of us should renew our mind now?

Actually that word is "paradosis" -- "a handing down or over, a tradition".

Keeping to the 'traditions' means to hold fast to the teaching that's been handed down. It does not mean to be a steward of the mystery, like this:

1 Corinthians 4:1 "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God"


Romans: 15:15 I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

 

[narnia59]

Same as protestant denominations!
Unity in diversity.
Now we're getting somewhere!

My problem with that will always be the items that are in 'diversity' within the varying sola-scriptura groups. Not minor at all in my view.

 

[Fireinfolding]

They're not rebelling against God
they're campaigning against what they
believe to be rebellion against God.

Yeah, first protestants

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

 

[sunlover1]

They were considered more noble because they were eager to accept the Gospel.

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians,

for (BECAUSE)

they received the message with great eagerness
and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

You didn't answer my question. How are Christians supposed to use Scripture as the "ultimate" authority for doctrine if they can't read? Are only the literate to have access to the truth?

Same way they can obey God's Word that says to:
"Study to show yourself approved to God,
a workman that needs not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.
Not only does God expect us to read or if we
can't then to find someone to read to us,.. or
if we can't then to at least get the book on tape.

He expects us to be able to study this stuff out
So really there's no good reason we can't' all
learn to read greek and Hebrew...

He expects us to get knowledge and understanding
He expects us to get wisdom.
He expects us (created in His image) to be all
that we can be! And HE has given us everything
we need for Life and godliness!
Scripture says that God will withhold no good
thing from us.
All good things are f rom God... the father of lights
in whom there is no shadow or turning.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Yes, I think you're right. But then there's the issues of Mary being born sinless, when the Bible explicitely says "all" descendents of Adam sinned, which would include Mary. Once you start heeding supernatural acounts of Biblical figures that are non-biblical, it opens the door for people to believe even contradictions like this.

So Jesus was born with the corruption of Original Sin? Or is He an exception? (The SDA teach that He was corrupted by Original Sin and could have sinned actually, but didn't). If Christ's human nature was not corrupted by Original Sin, is it unreasonable to say that God protected Our Lord's mother from corruption as well?

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Just as Eve was created in a state of purity, so was the New Eve -- Mary. It is integral to her role as Reparatrix. Only someone who was not only free from any actual sin but also from the corruption of Original Sin, could be a fit habitation for Our Lord. Everyone of us is cleansed from Original Sin at Baptism and sanctifying grace is infused into our soul but with Mary, she was not cleansed from Original Sin but prevented from contracting it. It is fitting, as Duns Scotus teaches, that a perfect Redeemer redeem at least someone perfectly.

Christ was the most perfect mediator. Therefore he exercised the highest degree of mediation in favour of another person. Now he could not be a most perfect mediator and could not repair the effects of sin to the highest degree if he did not preserve his Mother from original sin (as we shall prove). Therefore, since he was the most perfect mediator regarding the person of his Mother, from this it follows that he preserved her from original sin.

Scotus follows the precept that "God could do it, it is fitting that God would do it, therefore God did it." (potuit, decuit ergo fecit). It was a controversial position, even St. Thomas favored the idea that Mary was conceived with Original Sin and then was cleansed of it. But now, because of the papal dogmatic definition, we can rest assured in the truth of the fact that Mary was not simply cleansed of Original Sin as the rest of us were but was prevented from contracting it in the first place.

Since the word "all" in Rom 3:23 is clearly not exhaustive because Christ was exempted from it, it is not unreasonable to say that Christ's Mother was also exempted from it in order to be more worthy to bear Him. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not anti-Scriptural and more perfectly shows Christ's redemption of the world (which is also not exhaustive -- Christ died for all men but that doesn't mean all men are saved).

My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.

He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Same as protestant denominations!
Unity in diversity.
Now we're getting somewhere!

No, as I said, diversity in practice is one thing; diversity in belief is quite another -- that's called heresy.

 

[narnia59]

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians,

for(BECAUSE)

they received the message with great eagerness
and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Yes, and you're assuming they were more noble applies to both, rather than the second being a consequence of the first.

Same way they can obey God's Word that says to:
"Study to show yourself approved to God,
a workman that needs not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.
Not only does God expect us to read or if we
can't then to find someone to read to us,.. or
if we can't then to at least get the book on tape.

He expects us to be able to study this stuff out
So really there's no good reason we can't' all
learn to read greek and Hebrew...

He expects us to get knowledge and understanding
He expects us to get wisdom.
He expects us (created in His image) to be all
that we can be! And HE has given us everything
we need for Life and godliness!
Scripture says that God will withhold no good
thing from us.
All good things are f rom God... the father of lights
in whom there is no shadow or turning.

Over the 2000 years of Christianity sunlover? They could get a book? A tape? Until the industrial revolution came to be, it would cost the average person a year's salary to buy a Bible. Before the printing press it would take a monk working for more than a year to produce one copy. There were no tapes. Even today there are countries where more than half the population can't read. They wouldn't have electricity to run a tape player. God expected them to study the scriptures?

Is it only Christians today that God has given everything we need for Life and godliness? Did he strand millions for centuries because they could not read the Scriptures?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Yeah, first protestants

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

How is rebelling against God's Church and inventing new religions obeying God? Obedience to God, not self-will.

First Protestants:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

 

[Standing Up]

Yeah, first protestants

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Love that verse. Polycrates and the other bishops quoted it when responding to Rome's request.

 

[sunlover1]

No, as I said, diversity in practice is one thing; diversity in belief is quite another -- that's called heresy.

I know what you 'say'.

Yes, and you're assuming they were more noble applies to both, rather than the second being a consequence of the first.

I would dare say that the second was indeed a consequence of the first!
(Perhaps not "daily" but certainly many times )

Over the 2000 years of Christianity sunlover? They could get a book? A tape?

It may 'seem' like i have a lot of extra time to just waste it but i dont.

 

[Standing Up]

Actually that word is "paradosis" -- "a handing down or over, a tradition".

Keeping to the 'traditions' means to hold fast to the teaching that's been handed down. It does not mean to be a steward of the mystery, like this:

1 Corinthians 4:1 "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God"

Umm, you attempted a point with Timothy; that is, that Paul was speaking to one, but not to all, for if Paul had meant all, he would have said brethren. That is what he said, however, when instructing the Corinthians (and us ) about the eucharist. Nothing about priests, bishops, deacons, etc, but brethren.

1 Cor. 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

v23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:

v33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

So, we searched the scriptures and found that it is brethren who are called to the thanksgiving, to the eucharist, to the meal. Now what?

 

[Fireinfolding]

How is rebelling against God's Church and inventing new religions obeying God? Obedience to God, not self-will.

First Protestants:

I dont think the apostles were being self willed when the religious authorities of that day forbade them to speak in his name, they had a higher authority God, not men (even then).

They had all their little cheif priest and high priests, long robes, traditons the scribes books etc, it didnt do them a lick of good now did it?

So who was left TO THINK they were doing a service to God verses those who were walking with God and obediently so, the apostles were

 

[Fireinfolding]

Love that verse. Polycrates and the other bishops quoted it when responding to Rome's request.

I love that the apostles set forth that example, lots of "fobidding" whether it be of men or devils dont give heed to it, be on your way