Forum Guidelines: No Theology Debates
Comments
-
Halo Hound said:Terry Poperszky said:
just wish I had some popcorn as I sat down to watch the show.
Can't wait till the intermission...
I settled for iced tea and peanuts.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
5 Solas said:
My response is pretty clear cut and straightforward. Roman Catholicism is "another gospel" and cannot save. What else is there to say. It is not my opinion, it is based on the Authority of Scripture alone. But since Roman Catholics stand on the authority of a pope and not Scripture I do not expect you to understand or agree. But unless you repent and believe the Gospel you will perish in your sins.
I haven't read through all this thread - mainly only the first page and this page. But I thought I might weigh in a bit and will probably just end up getting more flame (but then again, I am Wesleyan so we're used to the 'flames'!). Anyway, you say RC's stand on the authority of the pope and not scripture, implying that the only valid way to be a Christian is to stand on the authority of Scripture. However, that seems to simplify a complex document (the Bible) and a complex issue (hermeneutics and ecclesiology) into something that it's not. If all we needed was the Bible to answer all questions of theology, it would seem that there would be no disagreement among Christians. After all, if the Bible was that clear on every doctrinal issue, then we should all be able to open it up and come to the same conclusions every time we read it. But, we all know that's not the case. Protestantism is known for, well, it's protests against other Christians. Bob mentioned this early on, not to say we are trying to be divisive, but to point out where our name comes from. We disagree on so much because the Bible is complex, full of meaning and beauty, and speaks different truths to different people and at different times. I'm sure you've had the experience of reading a passage and interpreting it one way, only to reread it days, months or years later and interpret it a completely different way. On who's authority do you rest your interpretation? It becomes circular to say the Bible's and problematic to say the Holy Spirit's. I believe we are (or should be) guided by the HS when interpreting the Bible, but I also believe we must walk in serious trepidation before we question someone else's inspiration of the HS. That includes the pope. RC's have put trust in the HS working through their system to elect a pope that will submit himself to the spiritual disciplines necessary to discern the Spirit's movements. Personally, I question some of the pope's words and actions at times. But then again, I also question yours ... and mine for that matter. As for RC being in no way 'Christian', you are basically calling the 2000 year history of Christianity false. You forget that you are influenced by that history and tradition. Calvin was influenced by Luther and Luther by the RC Church - however much he may have reacted against the church, he still was influenced by it and continued to keep some of it's teachings.
Personally, I wonder how you would interpret the actions of the Pharisees in the gospels. They seemed to be very exclusionary, claiming they had the corner on truth and Scriptural interpretation, and would criticize others for not following their ways of serving God - to the point of calling others heretical or forbidding them from the temple. Sound familiar?
Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer. Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App
0 -
5 Solas said:
My response is pretty clear cut and straightforward.
Your response is clear cut lawlessness. No two ways about it.
Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.
- Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
- Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
- Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.
- Please do not use our forums to
- sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products
- promote or link to competitors
- point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products
- advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)
- post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion.
- Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question.
- Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com.
0 -
Rev Chris said:
I'm sure you've had the experience of reading a passage and interpreting it one way, only to reread it days, months or years later and interpret it a completely different way. On who's authority do you rest your interpretation?
Wesley could not have said it better.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
James Macleod said:
I can't be bothered to read through this whole thread so this may already be addressed but I just want to say that Logos is doing the right thing. I don't want some narrow minded person dictating to me what I can buy and read. What if I am studying Catholic doctrine and want to get some authoritative resources on the subject? What I buy and read is my choice. Keep up the good work logos.
[Y]
Blessings,
FloydPastor-Patrick.blogspot.com
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Halo Hound said:Terry Poperszky said:
just wish I had some popcorn as I sat down to watch the show.
Can't wait till the intermission...
I settled for iced tea and peanuts.
McDonalds has the best Iced tea, primarily because it comes in a cool cup and its a buck.
Mind if I grab some of those peanuts?
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I settled for iced tea and peanuts.
Make mine dry roasted almonds and toss in a lemon wedge with my iced tea...
Lenovo P72: Intel 8th Gen i7-8750H 6-core, 32GB RAM, 2TB HDD + 1TB Sata SSD, 17.3" FHD 1920x1080, NVIDIA Quadro P600 4GB, Win 10 Pro
0 -
-
Personally, I think of a decree coming from a tyrannical organization. For instance, the one handed down during the Inquisition: That anyone in possession of a Bible would be put to death. Is this an example of the members following the leadership, The quality that is missing in the Protestants?Terry Poperszky said:request (decree?)
0 -
I believe that Logos has a problem with perception and expectations. Many in the customer base of Logos (historically protestants/evangelicals) consider the company to be a Christian ministry with all that it entails. Such assumptions are (at least partially) warranted by Logos’ own and repeated claim “to serve the Church” along with the type of resources that have been historically provided to the customer base. The issue is that parachurch ministries are usually evaluated according to the same principles used to evaluate the churches they support as customers have theological and doctrinal expectations. Logos’ diversification and practical if not doctrinal ecumenism (epitomized by the lack of a doctrinal statement) is bound to trouble some people. For them, it is one thing to have a diversity of theological viewpoint present in one’s catalog (most seminary libraries have diverse resources even the context of their exclusive theological truth claims and users understand why it is needed), It is another to justify it on a theological basis and implicitly give the impression that theological differences are irrelevant and that all viewpoints represented are to be treated as equally valid. While Logos has the right to ask customers not discuss theology (a wise decision from a business perspective), the company cannot expect customers not evaluate it from a theological perspective as long as it appears to be a ministry (Logos cannot be all things to all people). Similar demands are not made of Amazon or Apple because they do not claim to be Christian ministries and as such do not have to meet the same standards when they sell and promote books from all religions (including those with no religion). It is clear that Logos has taken the road of theological diversity, the company might spare itself a few headaches by clarified this development to its present customer base as it seeks to penetrate other markets. I personally do not see Logos as a parachurch ministry. As a result, I do not have theological expectations (same as Amazon or Apple) and my relationship with Logos is strictly business. At the same time, the company does not receive from me the same support or loyalty that I would give to a parachurch ministry (cannot have it both ways).
However, whether one agrees or disagrees that Logos is on the right path, we are all obligated to respect the wishes of the company and keep theology out of the website. This is the only point where unity is required and this is the only argument that needed to be made.
0 -
Schezic said:
For instance, the one handed down during the Inquisition: That anyone in possession of a Bible would be put to death.
Do you have a reference for that decree? Who published it? When?
I am Baptist and have heard this charge before, but have never seen an authoritative source.
0 -
Alain Maashe said:
However, whether one agrees or disagrees that Logos is on the right path, we are all obligated to respect the wishes of the company and keep theology out of the website. This is the only point where unity is required and this is the only argument that needed to be made.
You said it very well Alain. All of it. Thank you.[Y]
Bohuslav
0 -
Alain Maashe said:
However, whether one agrees or disagrees that Logos is on the right path, we are all obligated to respect the wishes of the company and keep theology out of the website. This is the only point where unity is required and this is the only argument that needed to be made.
Very well said. Logos is a business, not a Church.
0 -
(1) In the year 1215 Pope Innocent III issued a law commanding "that they shall be seized for trial and penalties, WHO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED VOLUMES, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their superiors; against whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal" (J.P. Callender, Illustrations of Popery, 1838, p. 387). Innocent "declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723).
0 -
I maintain Bob did not attack protestants - only a select group of individuals that happen to be protestant that are on the forums and attack other people. It was not on theological grounds that he offered his warnings - it was out of wanting to protect people from hateful attacks. If there's any theology in that, it is in the theology of love and grace by which the Spirit reveals God's work in the world. This is not a Catholic forum or even a RC thread. It is simply a thread of many people wanting to see respect and grace offered between people (I won't go so far as to say the children of God, because I get the feeling you don't believe all people are the children of God), and a few people who wish to undermine that desire.
Bob's request to leave theology out of the forums is a good one - when we engage in theological debates we tend to offer more hate and judgment than we do love and grace. And there's enough of that in the world - we don't need these forums to become just one more place where people don't feel safe to be faithful to what they believe.
Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer. Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App
0 -
Schezic said:
(1) In the year 1215 Pope Innocent III issued a law commanding "that they shall be seized for trial and penalties, WHO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED VOLUMES, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their superiors; against whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal" (J.P. Callender, Illustrations of Popery, 1838, p. 387). Innocent "declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723).
That doesn't say to me 'don't own a copy of the Bible or you shall die' - it says 'don't translate the Bible'. Why are we going back to the early 13th Century to find faults with people today, though? Seems odd...
Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer. Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App
0 -
5 Solas said:
Bob Pitchett is the one who started this chaos by asking us not to discuss theological views and then proceed to attack protestants. So maybe you should direct your comments to him?
I suggest you take a course in remedial reading since Bob in no way attacked Protestants.
EDIT: If your reading of the bible and of theological works is on a par with your reading of Bob's post, you obviously don't know whereof you speak.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
I suggest you take a course in remedial reading since Bob in no way attacked Protestants.
EDIT: If your reading of the bible and of theological works is on a par with your reading of Bob's post, you obviously don't know whereof you speak.
Bill Coley said:
The next time someone posts something with which you disagree. Say, “I disagree because.... But I gladly call you brother/sister.” If you can’t say that, then say, “I gladly call you brother/sister.” And if you can’t say that, then confess, repent, and ask forgiveness.Blessings,
0 -
5 Solas said:
your theology is wrong about Catholic Theology.
You sure know a lot about Catholic theology [:O] [;)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
From Wikipedia:
Old English
Although John Wycliff
is often credited with the first translation of the Bible into English,
there were, in fact, many translations of large parts of the Bible
centuries before Wycliff's work. Toward the end of the 7th century, the Venerable Bede began a translation of scripture into Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon). Aldhelm (c. 639–709) translated the complete Book of Psalms and large portions of other scriptures into Old English.In the 10th century an Old English translation of the Gospels was made in the Lindisfarne Gospels: a word-for-word gloss inserted between the lines of the Latin text by Aldred, Provost of Chester-le-Street.[1] This is the oldest extant translation of the Gospels into the English language.[1]
The Wessex Gospels (also known as the West-Saxon Gospels) are a full translation of the four gospels
into a West Saxon dialect of Old English. Produced in approximately
990, they are the first translation of all four gospels into English
without the Latin text.In the 11th century, Abbot Ælfric translated much of the Old Testament into Old English. The Old English Hexateuch is an illuminated manuscript of the first six books of the Old Testament. The Old English Heptateuch is a version without lavish illustrations but including a translation of the Book of Judges.
The English Bible was first translated from the Latin Vulgate into Old English by a few select monks and scholars. Such translations were generally in the form of prose or as interlinear glosses (literal translations above the Latin words).
Very few complete translations existed during that time. Rather, most
of the books of the Bible existed separately and were read as
individual texts. Thus, the sense of the Bible as history that often
exists today did not exist at that time. Instead, a more allegorical
rendering of the Bible was more common and translations of the Bible
often included the writer’s own commentary on passages in addition to
the literal translation.Middle English
The Ormulum is in Middle English of the 12th century. Like its Old English precursor from Ælfric,
an Abbot of Eynsham, it includes very little Biblical text, and focuses
more on personal commentary. This style was adopted by many of the
original English translators. For example the story of the Wedding at Cana
is almost 800 lines long, but fewer than 40 lines are the actual
translation of the text. An unusual characteristic is that the
translation mimics Latin verse, and so is similar to the better known
and appreciated 14th century English poem, Cursor Mundi.Richard Rolle
(1290–1349) wrote an English Psalter. Many religious works are
attributed to Rolle, but it has been questioned how many are genuinely
from his hand. Many of his works were concerned with personal devotion,
and some were used by the Lollards.[2]The 14th century theologian John Wycliffe is credited with translating what is now known as Wyclif's Bible, though it is not clear how much of the translation he himself did.[3]
This translation came out in two different versions. The earlier text
is characterised by a strong adherence to the word order of Latin, and
might have been difficult for the layperson to comprehend. The later
text made more concessions to the native grammar of English.Early Modern English
Early Modern English Bible translations are those translations of the
Bible which were made between about 1500 and 1800, the period of Early Modern English.
This was the first major period of Bible translation into the English
language. It began with the dramatic introduction of the Tyndale Bible.
The early 16th century Tyndale Bible differs from the others since
Tyndale used the Greek and Hebrew texts of the New and Old Testaments in
addition to Jerome’s Latin translation. Tyndale is also unique in that he was the first of the Middle English translators to use the printing press
to help distribute several thousand copies of this translation
throughout England. It included the first "authorised version", known as
the Great Bible (1539); the Geneva Bible (1560), notable for being the first Bible divided into verses, and the Bishop's Bible (1568), which was an attempt by Elizabeth I to create a new authorised version. It also included the landmark King James Version (1611) and Douay-Rheims Bibles.
Douay-Rheims Bible is the first complete English Catholic Bible. Called
Douay-Rheims because the New Testament portion was first completed in
Rheims France in 1582 followed by the Old Testament finished in 1609 in
Douay. In this version the 14 books of the Apochrypha are returned to
the Bible in the order written rather than kept separate in an appendix.Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Schezic said:George Somsel said:
I suggest you take a course in remedial reading since Bob in no way attacked Protestants.
EDIT: If your reading of the bible and of theological works is on a par with your reading of Bob's post, you obviously don't know whereof you speak.
Bill Coley said:
The next time someone posts something with which you disagree. Say, “I disagree because.... But I gladly call you brother/sister.” If you can’t say that, then say, “I gladly call you brother/sister.” And if you can’t say that, then confess, repent, and ask forgiveness.Blessings,
Whether I can call him my brother doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he can't read.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:5 Solas said:
your theology is wrong about Catholic Theology.
You sure know a lot about Catholic theology
I don't think he knows much of anything about Catholic theology since he doesn't feel that anyone should read (or at least be able to buy) books on Catholic theology and apparently can't read very well besides. I would be willing to discuss theology with anyone (though not here) who can demonstrate that he is actually acquainted with opposing views. He doesn't meet that criterion though he likes to pretend he does.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Alain Maashe said:
I believe that Logos has a problem with perception and expectations. Many in the customer base of Logos (historically protestants/evangelicals) consider the company to be a Christian ministry with all that it entails
I think you have diagnosed the problem well. I wonder if you can offer an antidote. Here is an article on parachurch organizations, supposedly from a Reformed perspective: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/01/church-or-parachurch.html If Bob Pritchett wants to incorporate as a 501c3 non-profit with the stated purpose of being a denominational church and subject Logos to any certain authoritative hierarchy, he is welcome to do so. But nobody; Emperor Constantine, the Pope, the US President, an Ayatollah, Calvin, Henry VIII, Billy Graham or even a forum poster, can force him to.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
MJ .... I don't know if you read Metzger's book on the translations. I'm guessing you already have it and probably already read it. But it's a fascinating story.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
The following needs to be said again, and again!
(1) "relationship with Logos is strictly business"!
(2) "we are all obligated to respect the wishes of the company and keep theology out of the website"!
(3) ζήτησον εἰρήνην καὶ δὶωξον αὐτήν (Consider peace and strive for it)
Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους(First Epistle of Clement) 22:5
Alain Maashe said:I believe that Logos has a problem with perception and expectations. Many in the customer base of Logos (historically protestants/evangelicals) consider the company to be a Christian ministry with all that it entails. Such assumptions are (at least partially) warranted by Logos’ own and repeated claim “to serve the Church” along with the type of resources that have been historically provided to the customer base. The issue is that parachurch ministries are usually evaluated according to the same principles used to evaluate the churches they support as customers have theological and doctrinal expectations. Logos’ diversification and practical if not doctrinal ecumenism (epitomized by the lack of a doctrinal statement) is bound to trouble some people. For them, it is one thing to have a diversity of theological viewpoint present in one’s catalog (most seminary libraries have diverse resources even the context of their exclusive theological truth claims and users understand why it is needed), It is another to justify it on a theological basis and implicitly give the impression that theological differences are irrelevant and that all viewpoints represented are to be treated as equally valid. While Logos has the right to ask customers not discuss theology (a wise decision from a business perspective), the company cannot expect customers not evaluate it from a theological perspective as long as it appears to be a ministry (Logos cannot be all things to all people). Similar demands are not made of Amazon or Apple because they do not claim to be Christian ministries and as such do not have to meet the same standards when they sell and promote books from all religions (including those with no religion). It is clear that Logos has taken the road of theological diversity, the company might spare itself a few headaches by clarified this development to its present customer base as it seeks to penetrate other markets. I personally do not see Logos as a parachurch ministry. As a result, I do not have theological expectations (same as Amazon or Apple) and my relationship with Logos is strictly business. At the same time, the company does not receive from me the same support or loyalty that I would give to a parachurch ministry (cannot have it both ways).
However, whether one agrees or disagrees that Logos is on the right path, we are all obligated to respect the wishes of the company and keep theology out of the website. This is the only point where unity is required and this is the only argument that needed to be made.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
Go George!
0 -
5 Solas said:
Your response to my response is just as clear cut and lawless.... wouldn't you think?
I'm reminded of the movie Dodgeball, Mr. Jokey… Joke-maker.
0 -
Schezic said:
Innocent "declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723).
Thank you for the reference. However, that was a couple of years prior to the current discussion.
0 -
Bob Pritchett just posted a very fine statement that addresses some issues raised in the 10 pages of this current thread.
Please read it with an honest mind, and consider it prayerfully before any knee-jerk reactions or critical spirit.
Read it here.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Bob made the point that the Catholics were less likely to "split" because they have a hierarchy.Jack Caviness said:Thank you for the reference. However, that was a couple of years prior to the current discussion.
If we are to know if that is a good thing, we must examine the results of the decisions made by that hierarchy.Since said hierarchy has been in power for centuries, we must look at ALL those decisions. I am very glad Bob brought this into focus. The grass roots "pew warmers" are not responsible for the church's actions. They are following the "infallible" word of the pope.Bob Pritchett said:I actually thought I was making a mildly clever point in response to calls for someone to "step in and settle things," by pointing out that protestant churches don't have the hierarchy of the Catholic church. When protestants disagree on doctrine, they rarely kick the issue upstairs for an authoritative answer from the church hierarchy; they just split the church. I was trying to make the point that it was harder to get people so inclined to ever "settle down and get along" when they believe they are arguing a theologically important point. I thought that the request for someone to "set the rules" reflected a perspective that might be informed by experience in a more hierarchial church structure.
0
