The Church as the Kingdom of God

[CatholicConvert]

Hello Keith --

Seems that we both feel a need to write about the things which we think about. I also have an unpublished manuscript which I would share with you if you wish.

My Email addy is stannrlc@mindspring.com

You may send the manuscript to me if you wish. I have Corel Word Perfect. It would also probably open in Richtext or WordPerfect.

It is very hard to respond to such a long series of posts. Let me attempt to perhaps state a few things here.

The Early Fathers were the first believers. We read what they wrote to see what they were taught by the apostles. Now there are only two possibilities regarding their writings:

1. They were men of honor to whom the apostles entrusted the great Deposit of Faith and who guarded it at the point of their lives. Men such as St. Ignatius could have easily saved their lives by compromising the message, but instead accepted martyrdom. We know by their writings that what they teach is what they were taught, therefore, it is what Christ Himself taught the apostles.

2. The were scoundrels of the worst sort who took the message given to them by the apostles and twisted it to their own liking. The had no scruples, conscience, or honor. This seems highly unlikely, since such a man will do ANYTHING to save his worthless hide when facing death.

Keith, you accept the interpretation of the Scriptures as put forth by Ellen White. She is the one who originated the SDA. You give to her understanding and writings the same authority which you claim that I give to the Early Fathers. Well, suppose that such is true and I do give them authority. WHO is closer to the Lord -- the second generation of believers or the 200th generation of believers?

As for the verses you quoted in defense of the Bible, you paint yourself in a corner by quoting them. St. Paul admonished Timothy to the Scriptures, but the New Testament was not written then!! Therefore, if we are to follow the Scriptures as did Timothy, we could only use the OT and could only come up with a religion which would most likely look like Judaism

Now the interesting part is that the SDA religion indeed looks very much like Judaism. You place yourself under the laws and regulations of the Old Covenant and fail to recognize that there has been a change in covenants and with that change, a corresponding change in the whole covenantal system.

I will try to address other points as I can digest your rather lengthy post.

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,

Brother Ed

 

[CatholicConvert]

Keith -

You will have to explain this original sin thing to me in more detail before I will attempt to answer it.

I am surprized that you do not have an answer in this area inasmuch as you claim to have a good understanding of the covenant and how it works.

I will share my understanding of original sin, which may not be exactly the way the Church would put it:

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Adam broke his covenantal relationship to his Father, and by doing so, involved the entire human race, still in his loins, in his sin. Thus, all mankind inherited a state of separation from the Father and covenantal disobedience. This is Adam's sad legacy to us and what would be termed "original sin."

What is your understanding of "original sin" or the Fall?

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,

Brother Ed

 

[BobRyan]

Brother Ed
The Early Fathers were the first believers. We read what they wrote to see what they were taught by the apostles. Now there are only two possibilities regarding their writings:

As Paul said to Timothy - HE WAS "the early father" to Timothy. And in fact - "the early fathers" in the purest sense are the authors of Scripture. We do well to "read them" and believe "them".

These "fathers" are a bain to many of our Catholic betheren who consider "reading them" to be a "sola scriptura problem" if we GO to those "early fathers" for our doctrine.

That is a significant "difference" that we sometimes see between our Catholic bretheren and other Christians.

Instead of having "faith in the wisdom of Augustine" - many of us choose to have "faith in God" and His prophets - those He inspired to write the NT and the OT.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[CatholicConvert]

Bob --

Unbelieveable. You STILL miss the point.

Look, how do we know WHAT St. Paul taught to the next generation?

The SDA's on this board would insist that it is Adventist teaching. I've seen Presbyterians who swear that it is the doctrines of John Calvin. Landmark Baptists have yet another idea of what was taught. And on and on.....

HOW can you make such a statement in the face of these great contradictions? To say that the only thing you must have is the Bible is to deny the legitimacy of the preachers and teachers of the first and second century as valid witnesses and teachers of what the apostles taught.

Indeed, if "sola scriptura" is truly your position, then you shouldn't listen to any preacher at all, for all they do is give you whatever their particular denomination taught them as an interpretation. It should be just you and a Bible. What need have you of anyone else to tell you what the Scriptures say?

Your real problem is that you FEAR TO ADMIT that the Early Fathers might just be the real and true representation of what was being taught across the board in the universal church, for to do so would make you have to convert to the Catholic Faith to be intellectually honest with yourself, and right now, you believe that such conversion would punch your reservation to hell, doncha?

Brother Ed

 

[Carson Weber]

These "fathers" are a bain to many of our Catholic betheren who consider "reading them" to be a "sola scriptura problem" if we GO to those "early fathers" for our doctrine.

The only thing Bob - is that the Church Fathers went to the Scriptures for their doctrine, and when we read and emulate the Fathers, we are doing precisely what you suggest, yet according to the rule of faith, which is how the Church reads the Scriptures.

The question isn't who is reading the Scriptures; the question is how you are reading the Scriptures.

Instead of having "faith in the wisdom of Augustine" - many of us choose to have "faith in God" and His prophets - those He inspired to write the NT and the OT.

This is a display of your simple ignorance of Augustine. Reading and meditating upon Augustine opens the riches of Scripture for us, for that is what he did as a bishop, and that is the job of a bishop: to preach the Word of God.

 

[Helen]

I'd rather simply read Scripture myself. In James we read that if we ask for wisdom, God is not sparing in giving it.

I think He can do all that is needed to help people understand His Word. Augustine was a mortal and made a great many mistakes. God doesn't have that problem.

 

[BobRyan]

quote: Bob said --
These "fathers" are a bain to many of our Catholic betheren who consider "reading them" to be a "sola scriptura problem" if we GO to -those "early fathers" for our doctrine.
--------------------------------

Carson
The only thing Bob - is that the Church Fathers went to the Scriptures for their doctrine, and when we read and emulate the Fathers, we are doing precisely what you suggest,

In Acts 17 we find that "those who were hearing the Apostles" - were "Studying the Scriptures DAILY to SEE WHETHER those things they were hearing - WERE SO".

But as mentioned - this is "not the model" that the Cathoic church would "preferr" - they would call this "sola scriptura" for NOT ONLY are they holding "hearers and readers" up to the "perfect standard" but they are holding the Apostle HIMSELF accountable.

Amazing!

A model that Catholicism can not embrace.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Carson Weber]

Helen, I'm sure you would be interested in my response to you concerning Divorce & Remarriage at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001632;p=3

I'd rather simply read Scripture myself.

Of course you would, but would that be the smart thing to do? Would you really put yourself into a position where you could fall into Eutychism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, or Monophysitism?

I would rather not suffer for the Gospel; I would rather not be obedient to bishops; I would rather not give up material possesions for poverty; I would rather not embrace chastity for the whims of my concupiscence.

In James we read that if we ask for wisdom, God is not sparing in giving it.

Then why read the Bible if you can acquire wisdom ex nihilo through simple prayer?

Or perhaps this wisdom isn't to be equated with divine revelation.

Augustine was a mortal and made a great many mistakes.

And I suppose you aren't a mortal and you don't make a great many mistakes?

The question isn't who's infallible; the question is who interprets the Bible according to the rule/analogy of faith.

 

[CatholicConvert]

Bob --

Why do you keep making such ludicrous statements as you do. All the Catholics on this board give you yards of Scripture to back up our doctrines. You just don't like/agree with how the Bible has been interpreted by the Church.

Brother Ed

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
I'd rather simply read Scripture myself.

Of course you would, but would that be the smart thing to do? Would you really put yourself into a position where you could fall into Eutychism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, or Monophysitism?

No, I'll just be a Berean and check everything out with Scripture when I'm told something. God knows how to communicate.

I would rather not suffer for the Gospel; I would rather not be obedient to bishops; I would rather not give up material possesions for poverty; I would rather not embrace chastity for the whims of my concupiscence.

You know your church is asking you to do that. You do not know that God is asking you to do that. Suffering for the gospel is our lot if we follow Jesus; obedience to bishops is secondary to obedience to Christ; giving up material possessions may be the same as burying your talent and deserving God's anger; and embracing chastity is not the way God designed man. The Catholic church says it is good for man to be alone. God said just the opposite many years ago.

In James we read that if we ask for wisdom, God is not sparing in giving it.

Then why read the Bible if you can acquire wisdom ex nihilo through simple prayer?

Or perhaps this wisdom isn't to be equated with divine revelation.

No, it's not. Divine revelation is the giving of knowledge. Wisdom is knowing what to do with it. The Bible is full of knowledge. We still need wisdom from God to know what to do with it. That is why so many people can read the Bible and become 'experts' in theology and the likes, and yet never have the wisdom regarding its meaning that comes only from God Himself.

Augustine was a mortal and made a great many mistakes.

And I suppose you aren't a mortal and you don't make a great many mistakes?

Yup. But by reading the Bible myself I have only my own errors to deal with, not mine compounded with his. Secondly, God can and does correct me. I have no way of knowing the corrections God has given Augustine!

The question isn't who's infallible; the question is who interprets the Bible according to the rule/analogy of faith.

The Bible does not need interpreting. It needs reading. And it explains itself -- you just have to read it. And pray for the wisdom only God can give.

In the wilderness, Jesus used straight Scripture to counteract the devil. Talking to the Pharisees, answering their challenges, the same. On the cross, Jesus directed His disciples to Scripture (Psalm 22). The Bereans were commended for checking everything according to Scripture. Rules and analogies of faith are from man. The Scripture itself is from God. To you. To me. To each one of us as individuals. Not to some body of men so that they could explain it's 'real meaning' to others according to some laws or whatever.

I'll be a Berean, thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

Ed --
All the Catholics on this board give you yards of Scripture to back up our doctrines.

Ed - I have no problem with making the case "Sola scriptura" or "yards of scripture to backup a point" -even if it differs from my own.

But the CC "objects" to the "Sola Scriptura approach" as we have seen from those who "object" from the CC POV whenever that subject is "posted".

Also - as we saw in the case of the John 6 statements (the details in the chapter) - the CC position bails out If "details" of the text are to be the "focus" of the discussion for texts "such as " John 6.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

First Ed claims that Catholics ARE basing their arguments on "yards of scripture" to support and define their position.

So when Helen jumps in with "give me YARDS of scripture every time - that is the Acts 17 model - that is the BEST model" as in the following --

Helen --
I'd rather simply read Scripture myself.

We then get "the Other face" of the CC - as an immediate objection to Helen's simple Bible affirming statement --

Carson --
Of course you would, but would that be the smart thing to do? Would you really put yourself into a position where you could fall into Eutychism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, or Monophysitism?

So here we see that The NT Authors "are too confusing" and we "might error" unless we read those who wrote CENTURIES LATER because THEY "were EASIER to understand" than the Apostles??

Give me the Word of God INSTEAD of the traditions of Man (Mark 7:6-11) every time. As we see in Mark 7 EVEN the ONE true Hebrew nation CHURCH leadership had a problem with that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Kamoroso]

Hello brother Ed.

There are actually more than just the two possibilities you presented regarding the church Fathers. A third would be that though well meaning, they got a little bit of their own ideas and wants mixed up with what they had been taught. The most succesful way to bring about change is through a creeping compromise or deception. Just a little here and their, so as not to be noticed. Probably not even percieved by the one bringing it about.

In any case, the writings of the church Fathers should be judged by the scriptures, not the scriptures by the writings of the church Fathers. Having studied the scriptures for many years before desiring to read the writings of the church Fathers for myself, I was very unimpressed with the latter.

I don't believe brother, that you are saying that the new testament is not scripture, are you? If indeed the new testament is Holy scripture, and it is, then of course what Paul wrote to Timothy certainly does apply. However, just in case you have a problem with that, lets take a look at something the apostle Peter, your first Pope wrote.

2 Pet 3:15-16 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Notice in verse 16, that Peter refers to the epistles of Paul being wrested by some of the unlearned and unstable. He then says that these same people do the same to the other scriptures also, thereby declaring the epistles of Paul to be scripture. Surely if the apostle Peter declares the writings of the new testament to be scripture, then they are. Even more so for you brother, since you consider him to be the very first Pope.

Now regarding the writings of Ellen White. I do not judge the scriptures by the writings of EGW, but rather the writings of EGW by the scriptures. Just as I admonish you to judge the writings of the supposed church Fathers by the scriptures, and not the other way around.

My beliefs are not based upon EGW, they are based upon the scriptures. You have not seen me use her writings once to prove what I believe, and you never will. As far as the Pope being antichrist, and the Catholic church being the whore of the book of Revelation, these beliefs are not at all original to EGW. Almost without exception, these things were believed by every single Protestant reformer.

You said that SDA's place themselves under the laws and regulations of the old covenant. This is not true. We are under grace. We just don't believe that grace means lisence to sin. True acceptance of the grace of God brings about full submission to him. Obedience to the law of God is not living under the old covenant, it is the result of salvation. Not that one keeps the law in order to be saved, but because they are saved.

Speaking of living under the old covenant though, it is the church of Rome which re-established a Preisthood that once again places mere men between humanity and their Savior. This very thing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ came to this earth to abolish. By him we have direct access to the throne of God for the forgiveness of our sins, and the renewing of our minds. The justification, and the sanctification of the believer. By re-establishing a Priesthood for the forgiveness of sins, and the ministering of the sacrament, the church of Rome has separated it's believers from the Lord Jesus Christ, and established an old covenant system that is void of saving power.

Heb 4:14-16 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Bye for now.Y. b. in C. Keith.

 

[Kamoroso]

Brother Ed, you asked - What is your understanding of "original sin" or the Fall?

Volumes could, and have been written pertaining to the subject of the above. We were all infected by the fall, in as much as we are all the desendents of Adam and Eve. The first Adam brought forth sin, and death. The second Adam, ( Christ ) brought forth righteousness and salvation from sin. Just as we were all in Adam when he sinned, resulting in death, so were we all in Christ when he died, resulting in justification and life. Thus each individual must choose for themselves who they want to be in.

I Jn 5:10-12 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Heb 2:16-18 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:15-16 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Heb. 10: 4-7 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.

What is the will of God but that the human flesh, the carnal nature, be sacrificed that the Spirit of God can live and rule in our lives. It is Christ who sacrificed His life and paid the penalty for sin, that in Him you might have life and the forgiveness of sins. By faith the Christian accepts his own death in Christ. When Jesus died on the cross He took our sins with Him. It was our sinful nature that was crucified on the cross with Christ.

Rom 6: 6&7 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is free from sin.

If by faith you accept your death in Christ then you are free from sin, you are justified. In fact all people have already been justified in Christ if they would just care to accept it.

2 Cor 5:14 Christ died for all, therefore all died.

Rom. 5:18 18 So then through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

The provisions have already been made, you and I are the sons and daughters of God, for we have been "bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are Gods." and again "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." (1 Cor. 6; 20 & 7: 23) The whole of the human race were in Christ when He died on the cross, and were justified in Him, if they would just care to accept it. In Romans chapter 5: 12-21 it is clearly pointed out that we all became sinners through or in Adam, in as much as we inherited his sinful nature. On the other hand we all can become righteous through and in Christ by inheriting His divine nature. So we see that we all were in Adam when he sinned and we all were in Christ when He performed the righteous act of the crucifixion. Because of this we all have a choice to make, do I continue to serve self in sin or do I serve Christ through righteousness, beginning with the crucifixion of self by faith in Christ.

"5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus;
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Phil. 2: 5-8)

The way of the cross is the first and continual act of following Christ. It is justification and sanctification for the Christian. This one righteous act by Jesus was but the literal fulfillment of what had been going on spiritually in His life from the beginning. Sacrificing the will of His own human sinful nature in the flesh and allowing God's will to be performed in Him.

"28 Then said Jesus unto them, when ye have lifted up the son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. (John 8: 28& 29)

When Jesus said that he did nothing of himself he must have been referring to his human nature and divine nature for He possessed both. However it was only his human nature that would ever do something other than what God wanted. It was this nature that he crucified continually while here on earth and finally ended all together on the cross. Both Christ's divine and human natures were yielded up on the cross, however only one was never to rise again, and this is salvation. By faith we enter into this experience, crucifying the old man that Christ might live in and through us, creating a new creature (Rom. 6).
Christ came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it (Matt. 5; 17 & 18), He is the only man that ever fulfilled the law and the only man that ever will. In order for God's law to be fulfilled in us, Christ must be in us, and if Christ is in us, then there is no room for self. Self must be crucified with Christ that Christ might fully dwell within us.

"20 I am crucified with Christ: never the less I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of god, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal. 2; 20 & 21)

Those who understand that they have died with Christ, must also understand that they are no longer alive, and if so, someone or something must live in their place. That someone is Christ, for this is God's purpose in our salvation. Not just that our past sins be forgiven but that we might have a new life of righteousness, Christ's righteousness.

"3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit" (Rom. 8: 3 & 4)

So then in Christ we are justified, because self is no longer alive and self is what is condemned by the law, and when Christ is in us we are sanctified because Christ is righteous, He is the fulfillment of the law. This is not a one time experience, this is the Christian experience. Paul says "I die daily" (1 Cor. 15: 31) There is no sanctification without justification, and there is no justification without sanctification. For if I am justified in Christ then I am dead, and if I am dead then someone must live in me and that someone must be Christ, unless I am dead indeed. If Christ lives in me then I am sanctified because He is righteous, but if not then I must be alive, and if I am alive then I am not justified for I am condemned by the law being a sinner. Certainly I cannot be sanctified on my own account for I am carnal a slave to sin. So we see that you can not have one without the other.

The Christian experience is the setting aside of mans desires and purposes, that is those of the flesh, and the fulfillment of God's desires and purposes within you, that is those of the Spirit. This is a continual process that never ends, if and when it does end it is the beginning of the end of God's purpose in your life.

Those who constitute God's people today are those who are living this experience, that is they are living by the Spirit and not by the flesh. For to be one of Gods people has nothing to do with the flesh or of the flesh. Israel are those in the Spirit and not in the flesh, for the flesh cannot see the kingdom of God, regardless of what race, religion, or nationality it is.

Bye for now. Y. B. in C. Keith

 

[Carson Weber]

No, I'll just be a Berean and check everything out with Scripture when I'm told something. God knows how to communicate.

In other words, you are your own final authority. Unless Helen agrees with you, Helen will not accept your interpretation.

You've just recognized an individual final authority for every Christian - you have ratified the irreconcilable policy of perpetual division through private judgment of the Scriptures (what they mean to me), proposed in the 16th century.

Consider just how foreign your outlook is to that of Paul, writing to Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim 2:2).

embracing chastity is not the way God designed man

You are mistaking chastity for continence. Every individual is called to embrace chastity.

chastity \chas-te-te\ n : the quality or state of being chaste; esp : sexual purity

continence \kant-en-ens\ n 1 : self-restraint; esp : a refraining from sexual intercourse

(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

To be chaste is to be pure in thought and action, innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse.

This is a challenge for each Christian and very difficult, but with the grace received in the Sacraments and through prayer, we are given the power of the Holy Spirit, the New Law, to embrace chastity wholeheartedly and fully as reborn children of God.

The Catholic church says it is good for man to be alone. God said just the opposite many years ago.

Helen, if you would familiarize yourself with the Sacred Scriptures, you would see that the call to continence is wholly Biblical and God himself said it in his Word.

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Mt 19:12)

Apparently, you are unable to receive this.

"[H]e who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Cor 7:38).

Care to dispute with Saint Paul?

The Catholic Church expounds what the Scriptures say, and when you disagree with the Church, you're inherently disagreeing with Scripture. Isn't that ironic?

Divine revelation is the giving of knowledge. Wisdom is knowing what to do with it. The Bible is full of knowledge. We still need wisdom from God to know what to do with it.

Knowing what practically to do with this knowledge is one thing. But, we are speaking of exegesis and heremeneutics, which involves the very knowledge itself. Determining what the Bible says (interpretation) isn't a practical application of Divine Revelation; it's the actual determining of the content of divine revelation.

But by reading the Bible myself I have only my own errors to deal with, not mine compounded with his.

So who would you rather follow? A bishop 16 centuries closer to the authors of Scripture, the pristine Apostolic tradition, and the culture of Jesus Christ.. or yourself, a person 20 centuries separated?

For me, the decision isn't that difficult. I recognize my grave insufficiency.

I would rather err on the side of Apostolic teaching than personal whimsical interpretation.

The Bible does not need interpreting.

Well, Helen, you've just placed yourself in a class all of your own. I do not know of another Christian who would agree with you.

[ May 11, 2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
No, I'll just be a Berean and check everything out with Scripture when I'm told something. God knows how to communicate.[/b]

In other words, you are your own final authority. Unless Helen agrees with you, Helen will not accept your interpretation.

You've just recognized an individual final authority for every Christian - you have ratified the irreconcilable policy of perpetual division through private judgment of the Scriptures (what they mean to me), proposed in the 16th century.
</font>[/QUOTE]Good to see you are as inconsistent as you are illogical.

Earlier in this very thread (pages 4 - 6 I believe) you and I discussed how individual Christians all fall into individual interpretation...and you agreed. Now you don't. I suspect you agreed before because you were unaware of the consequences.

The final issue is that individual Christians do and must interpret every teaching for their lives. If you disagree with this, you are a fool. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please do not mock or chide Helen for something you yourself are guilty of. That is commonly known as hypocrisy.

And, in another issue, you also bear false witness because Helen never said she is the final authority. She claimed the final authority (the real definition of Sola Scriptura Mr. Thessolonian (who keeps getting it wrong)) rests in the bible, she is mearly interepreting it. This, in no way, constitutes Helen being the final authority unless she is unwilling to change her viewpoint based upon further information. Rather, she is mearly stating her belief that she is doing right by God based upon her understanding of the bible. This is not final authority, rather, individual interpretation.

If you wanted to discuss individual interpretation yet again, we can. Though I suspect you do not, and I may not be around to argue with even more of your illogical statements.

In Christ,
jason

 

[CatholicConvert]

Now regarding the writings of Ellen White. I do not judge the scriptures by the writings of EGW, but rather the writings of EGW by the scriptures.

I am curious. Were you born to an SDA family? If not, then when did you first encounter the interpretations of EGW regarding the Holy Scriptures?

My beliefs are not based upon EGW, they are based upon the scriptures. You have not seen me use her writings once to prove what I believe, and you never will.

So you are saying, in effect, that you became an SDA member all on your own and only later did you find that EGW's writings coincided with your beliefs?

Are you saying that you read these verses

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

All by yourself and without commentary from EGW and decided all on your own, without any external Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries, etc. that the non Eucharistic understanding of these passages is the correct one?

You do realize that DHK, Sola Scriptura, Carson Weber, and you all claim to have the Bible alone as their authority and yet none of the four of you agree on much of anything. How's that happen? WHY should I believe your understanding to be somehow better than DHK's? What PROOF do you have that you are being led correctly and he is not?

As far as the Pope being antichrist, and the Catholic church being the whore of the book of Revelation, these beliefs are not at all original to EGW. Almost without exception, these things were believed by every single Protestant

I know. If you study the Westminster Confession, it states that quite clearly. It used to be jolly fun for the Examination Committee, when giving a ministerial candidate the "once over" on doctrine, to ask the person if they agree with the Westminster Confession and believe the pope to be the anti-christ. Fun to watch the ministerial candidate squirm for an answer to this.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[thessalonian]

"The final issue is that individual Christians do and must interpret every teaching for their lives. If you disagree with this, you are a fool. Nothing more, nothing less. "

Jason,

I want you to look very closely at Acts 17 if you will. Now there are two groups in Acts 17, the thessalonians and the Bereans. Now why were the Bereans nobel? Because of their superiour exegetical skills which allowed them to interprut correctly (remember, as yet they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling in the). Nope, here is the reason:

Acts 17:11
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they RECIEVED THE WORD with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

The recieved the spoken word and compared it to the spoken word. Nowhere does it say they had there own interprutation and it lined up with Paul and the Bible. They took Pauls interpruation and compared it to scripture.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Jason,

I want you to look very closely at Acts 17 if you will. Now there are two groups in Acts 17, the thessalonians and the Bereans. Now why were the Bereans nobel? Because of their superiour exegetical skills which allowed them to interprut correctly (remember, as yet they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling in the). Nope, here is the reason:

Acts 17:11
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they RECIEVED THE WORD with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

The recieved the spoken word and compared it to the spoken word. Nowhere does it say they had there own interprutation and it lined up with Paul and the Bible. They took Pauls interpruation and compared it to scripture.

1. Note the bolds. The word "compared" implies interpretation in your explanation.

2. It is quite amazing that fail to see what you plainly state:

The Bereans used interpretation of the teachings to line them up. The final, fundamental truth is that everyone (Bereans, Carson, you and me) interpret the teachings of an authority or whatnot to see if they line up with the bible...or...we interpret the teachings to see if they line up with our interpretation.

Now, as I have said before, if you ignore this truth, you are a fool. The real issue is not interpretation because, as has been shown over and over again, we all do it; rather, the issue is authority. We can discuss that as well.

In Christ,
jason

 

[Yelsew]

Carson Weber, You said in your paper,

The Church, at times, appears far from being a Godly kingdom with its politics, sinners, scandals, bureaucracy, hypocrisy, injustice, and other blemishes that would cause both I and other countless Catholics to discount the Church for a simple, natural man-made institution, cleverly designed and promulgated with the wisdom of men to promote a Gospel constructed upon a Christ of faith instead of the true historical Jesus, a marginal Jew.

What specifically do you mean by "Jesus, a marginal Jew"?