ECT What is your definition of a Christian? What is scriptures definition?

[Squeaky]

I know what you are saying.

I said
If we could only get people to understand the difference between interpretation and The Word Of God. Interpretation is theology, the verses are the Word Of God.

 

[oatmeal]

I said
If we could only get people to understand the difference between interpretation and The Word Of God. Interpretation is theology, the verses are the Word Of God.

That is correct.

Yet, in order to communicate truths we need, at times to paraphrase it in other terms without losing meaning. That can help others understand.

We most certainly do not want to interpret scriptures, we want to understand it well enough to say it in the vocabulary our listeners understand.

 

[IMJerusha]

Nonsense. It's no more a "conflict" than is the fact that you go to your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect for your texts.

But, I don't and I don't see anything recently invented about Christianity.

Of course your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect is going to make its claims and support them with its own teaching, but nowhere in Scripture is that taught.

Christianity isn't man made. It's God made and Scripture definitely teaches that.

In any case, I've already provided a lengthy list of biblical texts which more than substantiate the claims of Christ's one historic Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, but you've only provided Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

• First, your comment relies completely upon the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura ("scripture alone"), a doctrine that is itself nowhere taught---or even hinted at---in Scripture, and so which merely refutes itself.
• Second, every proof-text you post is merely an interpretation of Scripture that you have derived from your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect, so the second part of your statement may be applied just as well to you yourself.

I don't think I'm a proponent of Sola Scriptura. I am a proponent of Scripture to test spirits by. I don't think I've posted any proof text other than Scripture, if I've even posted that.

Irrelevant. The Church's teachings are established and authoritative, whether or not individual Catholics properly comprehend them or adequately follow them.

Irrelevant? I hardly think the Pope would declare the leadership of the Ruach in people's lives to be irrelevant. I would like to know how you will respond to Yeshua when He asks you why you dismiss that leadership in favor of the leadership of men. You can' t honestly believe that every Catholic leader has been correct in their behavior and interpretation of Scripture leading them to that behavior.

They're all plainly stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Meaning what?...that Catholic priests don't give a fig for the eternal souls of non-Catholics? I don't think so. No faith expression has more resources for evangelism than the Catholic church and yet they don't go about saying the things you say. I'm thinking you've got something askew.

 

[Aimiel]

My definition of a Christian is someone whom Christ knows. The others will be told: "Depart from me, I never knew you."

 

[Squeaky]

That is correct.

Yet, in order to communicate truths we need, at times to paraphrase it in other terms without losing meaning. That can help others understand.

We most certainly do not want to interpret scriptures, we want to understand it well enough to say it in the vocabulary our listeners understand.

I said
Some paraphrase and some demonstrate. But when paraphrasing differs from demonstrating it is interpretation.

1 Cor 2:4-7
4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
(NKJ)

1 Cor 2:9-15
9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
(NKJ)

 

[oatmeal]

I said
Some paraphrase and some demonstrate. But when paraphrasing differs from demonstrating it is interpretation.

1 Cor 2:4-7
4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
(NKJ)

1 Cor 2:9-15
9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
(NKJ)

People need to be able to avoid taking artistic license with scripture.

Scripture was not scripture till God had it written down by holy men of God. II Peter 1:21

When we read the scriptures, so much of it is a record of events or truths already occurred or learned that God wanted recorded for our learning and/or application.

God had his hand in most of them, but the record of it, scripture is all God's doing.

Matthew 6:33 I could state that God will take of your needs if you put God first. As long as I am simply emphasizing a truth that Matthew 6:33 teaches, I am not toying with the truth. However, if someone were state that Matthew 6:33 requires that I join a particular denomination in order to be fulfilled in my life, that would clearly be adding to, deleting from, and changing scripture.

Teaching scripture requires we know scripture well enough that we can state it in our own terms accurately, that is that our paraphrasing does not change the meaning.

That is part of living a Christian lifestyle, we are ambassadors for Christ, II Corinthians 5:20, we do not change the message, we simply speak it.

However, first we must become Christians, by doing Romans 10:9-10, before we can learn to and live righteously as God tells us in scripture.

 

[Cruciform]

But, I don't and I don't see anything recently invented about Christianity.

Of course you do. Everyone interprets and applies the Bible according to the doctrinal tradition promoted by his chosen religious community. Catholics read Scripture through the lens of the ancient teaching Tradition of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, while non-Catholics read Scripture through the lens of the opinions of their chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. Either way, we all interpret the Bible according to our particular tradition(s)---and you are certainly no exception to this basic fact.

Christianity isn't man made.

But your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect certainly is.

I'm sorry, but you've only provided Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

Just as when you present biblical texts, you provide a decidedly NON-Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

I don't think I'm a proponent of Sola Scriptura.

Your posted comments assume the validity of sola scriptura which, as has already been observed, is merely a self-refuting proposition.

Irrelevant? I hardly think the Pope would declare the leadership of the Ruach in people's lives to be irrelevant.

No, what is irrelevant is whether or not individual Catholics properly comprehend formal Catholic doctrines and/or adequately follow them. Specifically, this is irrelevant to the fact that the Church's teachings are officially defined and authoritatively established.

I would like to know how you will respond to Yeshua when He asks you why you dismiss that leadership in favor of the leadership of men.

God has always worked his purposes through human individuals and agencies, primary among them Christ's one historic Church (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).

The question is why you dismiss Christ's appointed human leadership---and therefore that of Jesus Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:15)---in favor of the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

You can' t honestly believe that every Catholic leader has been correct in their behavior and interpretation of Scripture leading them to that behavior.

Magisterial infallibility has nothing to do with the "behavior" of individual bishops, but rather with the formal teachings of the body of bishops as a whole in union with the Pope. Thus, the Magisterium (bishops in union w/ the Pope) is indeed infallible in its interpretations and teachings regarding doctrine and morals.

Meaning what?...that Catholic priests don't give a fig for the eternal souls of non-Catholics?

Priests are not infallible in their individual teachings. If the opinions of some priests depart from the formal teachings of the Church, then the priests are simply incorrect. They may certainly be sincere, but to the extent that they depart from the Church's formal doctrines, they must be considered sincerely wrong.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[IMJerusha]

Of course you do.

Big assumption on your part. Not everyone adheres to a religious community the way you suggest. I am where I am because where I am agrees with what the Ruach has taught me, not what Messianic Judaism has taught me.

Everyone interprets and applies the Bible according to the doctrinal tradition promoted by his chosen religious community.

No they don't. Many people are where they are by the leadership of the Ruach.

Catholics read Scripture through the lens of the ancient teaching Tradition of Christ's one historic Catholic Church,

Which may or may not be correct depending on whether those writings were inspired of God.

while non-Catholics read Scripture through the lens of the opinions of their chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

Again, big and incorrect assumption on your part. Can you not give the Ruach any credit in the lives of believers?

Either way, we all interpret the Bible according to our particular tradition(s)---and you are certainly no exception to this basic fact.

At one time in my faith walk, I might have agreed that I am no exception but I have since learned that God meets us where we are at, understands us intimately and guides us through the leadership of the Ruach as He chooses and finds us capable of accepting. That being the case, I now know that there are many others just like me who no longer abide by "tradition" but have moved forward in their faith walks. Tradition can be a very dangerous thing to those in the faith. Yeshua was very clear about that in conversation with the P'rushim.

But your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect certainly is.

I am first and foremost a Christian and if I am led from Messianic Judaism, I will go. It's just that simple. I've witnessed many Catholics who have left Catholicism for the very same reason.

Just as when you present biblical texts, you provide a decidedly NON-Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

That has to do with what I posted above...the leadership of the Ruach, not any leadership of faith expression.

Your posted comments assume the validity of sola scriptura which, as has already been observed, is merely a self-refuting proposition.

No, it doesn't. It assumes the validity of the leadership of the Ruach whereas your posts assume that God changes and His Word can not be trusted.

No, what is irrelevant is whether or not individual Catholics properly comprehend formal Catholic doctrines and/or adequately follow them.

That's fine as long as they are first and foremost following the leadership of the Ruach in agreement with God's Word. But when Catholic doctrine veers from God's Word, and a lot of it does, that's when folks had best be paying attention.

Specifically, this is irrelevant to the fact that the Church's teachings are officially defined and authoritatively established.

Any teaching that goes against God's Word in any way, is off. Where there is an exception to God's rule, there is no rule.

God has always worked his purposes through human individuals and agencies, primary among them Christ's one historic Church (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).

God has always worked his purposes through human individuals and agencies. I'll agree with that but the rest of that sentence is pure pridefulness that He abhors and I'm not talking about your Scripture verses which have nothing to do with Catholicism directly.

The question is why you dismiss Christ's appointed human leadership---and therefore that of Jesus Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:15)---in favor of the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

I don't. I merely place the leadership of God over man.

Magisterial infallibility has nothing to do with the "behavior" of individual bishops, but rather with the formal teachings of the body of bishops as a whole in union with the Pope. Thus, the Magisterium (bishops in union w/ the Pope) is indeed infallible in its interpretations and teachings regarding doctrine and morals.

Not what God says. He calls sin, sin and states that none are unaffected by it. That was the whole point of Yeshua and His sacrifice.

Priests are not infallible in their individual teachings. If the opinions of some priests depart from the formal teachings of the Church, then the priests are simply incorrect. They may certainly be sincere, but to the extent that they depart from the Church's formal doctrines, they must be considered sincerely wrong.

None are unaffected by sin. We either agree with God's Word or we don't. We certainly don't get to make up wiggle room out of God's Word or supplant His Word with our traditions.

 

[Cruciform]

Again, big and incorrect assumption on your part.

No, rather a conclusion based upon Divine Revelation (that is, God's Word: Scripture and Tradition).

Can you not give the Ruach any credit in the lives of believers?

Certainly. According to God's Word, the Holy Spirit guides and teaches the faithful in and through the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church.

I am first and foremost a Christian and if I am led from Messianic Judaism, I will go. It's just that simple.

You may therefore want to seriously consider this excellent book, along with this one.

That has to do with what I posted above...the leadership of the Ruach, not any leadership of faith expression.

Already answered. It should also be noted that I could make the very same claim---"I am not following Catholic Tradition, I'm simply being led by the Holy Spirit!" Now what?

No, it doesn't. It assumes the validity of the leadership of the Ruach...

Every believer claims to be led by the Holy Spirit. Your claim is no more compelling than mine.

...whereas your posts assume that God changes and His Word can not be trusted.

Now go ahead and post your proof for this bare assertion.

But when Catholic doctrine veers from God's Word, and a lot of it does...

Nope, I'm being led by the Holy Spirit. In any case, post your proof for the above claim. For example...?

Any teaching that goes against God's Word in any way, is off.

I agree. However, contradicting your preferred interpretations of God's Word does not equate to "going against God's Word" itself. Big difference there.

God has always worked his purposes through human individuals and agencies. I'll agree with that but the rest of that sentence is pure pridefulness that He abhors and I'm not talking about your Scripture verses which have nothing to do with Catholicism directly.

Again, post your proof for these bare assertions.

I don't. I merely place the leadership of God over man.

As has already been observed:

"You dismiss Christ's appointed human leadership---and therefore that of Jesus Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:15)---in favor of the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect."​

Not what God says. He calls sin, sin and states that none are unaffected by it. That was the whole point of Yeshua and His sacrifice.

You're still not getting it. The Catholic doctrine of infallibility applies only to the formal teachings of the body of bishops, not to the ethical behavior of any individual bishop.

We either agree with God's Word or we don't. We certainly don't get to make up wiggle room out of God's Word or supplant His Word with our traditions.

If you're accusing the Catholic Church of the latter, go ahead and post your proof for this bare assertion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+