F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
Nothing says sufficient… Did you mean to reference some other passage?
- Status
P
Pat_De
Guest
P
Pat_De
Guest
You are right, which I have pointed out that we have digressed; meaning we have left the original intent of the topic. Time to move on as you politely implied; grace to you.
T
twinc
Guest
sufficient = adequate,enough,competent,fit,able,so scripture does say it is sufficient and it is you who say it is insufficient - twinc
P
PJM
Guest
***READ the very Words of the One she claims is her savior in John 3:5
John 3: 5* "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
**John 3:16-17 **"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, ***but that the world might be saved through him. ***
**John 3:36 **“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”
One can’t get to heaven accepting a single verse!
No one verse can contradict another verse in TRUE meaning
Ask her to be candid, informed and HONEST!
Love and prayers,
Pat
Read Mattt. 19:17, Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18, John 20:19-23 for additional conditional instructions that effect ones POSSIBLE salvation.
Paul never wrote about Baptism?Rom.6: [4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Eph.4: [5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Col.2: [12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the **dead.
ASK HER: On what basis is Paul of greater signifiance that Jesus Himself; an the Apostle-Evangilist; Matthew, mark, Luke and John. That position is of extreme limited understanding.
THEN ASK HER: Who’s right? You or God?
2Tim.3 Verses 16 to 17: " All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," Notice “ALL” and “By God!”[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Wow some folks really hold to there own limited understanding.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
uhh, the verse you listed had none of those words in it. I am wondering if you meant a different verse?
And there is no verse that says “the bible is enough”, “the bible is adequate”, “the bible is able”, “the bible is competent”, and definitely no “the bible is sufficient”.
What it DOES say is
, but PROFITABLE does not mean SUFFICIENT.
Goodness gracious, I thought you were Catholic! Never thought I would have to explain fundamentals to a Catholic considering my lowly convert status.
J
JRKH
Guest
Is the bible “sufficient”? Let us consider…
Is it sufficient to bring one to Christ? Yes
Certainly one could read the Bible, and find in it a loving and merciful God and also the directions for achieving heaven.
Is it sufficient to drive one from Christ? Yes
Certainly one can read the bible and find in it a cruel and highly judgemental God along with a theology full of contradictions. I’ve seen this many times in talking with atheists
Is it possible to read the Bible and understand it fully without any other (name removed by moderator)ut? No.
The Bible, with it’s many books written over many centuries is not easily comprensable without external help. Hense teh many “Study bibles” and “conpendiums” published. Even with the grace to the Holy Spirit, it can be difficult. Add to that the fact that Christianity as not founded on “a book” but on a “community” and the whole idea of the Bible Alone being all one needs falls apart.
The Eunich could read Scripture but said “how can I understand unless someone explains it?” Hense proving the need for community.
The Bereans were commended for searching Scripture, but as a community, not each alone to draw his/her own conclusions.
Christ tells us to take disputes to The Church/Ekklesia/Community for resolution. He does not tell us to take it to “The Book”.
Scripture is “Inspired of God”. But as a book, it is just as sufficient to drive one away from God as it is sufficient to draw one To God.
Peace
James
Is it sufficient to bring one to Christ? Yes
Certainly one could read the Bible, and find in it a loving and merciful God and also the directions for achieving heaven.
Is it sufficient to drive one from Christ? Yes
Certainly one can read the bible and find in it a cruel and highly judgemental God along with a theology full of contradictions. I’ve seen this many times in talking with atheists
Is it possible to read the Bible and understand it fully without any other (name removed by moderator)ut? No.
The Bible, with it’s many books written over many centuries is not easily comprensable without external help. Hense teh many “Study bibles” and “conpendiums” published. Even with the grace to the Holy Spirit, it can be difficult. Add to that the fact that Christianity as not founded on “a book” but on a “community” and the whole idea of the Bible Alone being all one needs falls apart.
The Eunich could read Scripture but said “how can I understand unless someone explains it?” Hense proving the need for community.
The Bereans were commended for searching Scripture, but as a community, not each alone to draw his/her own conclusions.
Christ tells us to take disputes to The Church/Ekklesia/Community for resolution. He does not tell us to take it to “The Book”.
Scripture is “Inspired of God”. But as a book, it is just as sufficient to drive one away from God as it is sufficient to draw one To God.
Peace
James
A
ab75
Guest
Isn’t this pretty much what the Catholic Church teaches? We don’t teach that an RCIA participant who has had a conversion of heart, will be denied salvation if they die before the Easter Vigil. Of course we say we can’t be SURE who is in Heaven or not, however we generally don’t believe that someone with a conversion experence who has not yet had the opportunity to be baptised is at risk. If we felt it was absolutely necessary, wouldn’t wouldn’t we make sure babies were baptised right when born, and converts were baptised as soon as they believed.
It feels like this dispute, like way to many is hinging on our collective internal definitions of words, such as necessary, faith, grace, etc. Basically, it is necessary not to reject baptism … and it’s difficult to see why anyone with a good understanding of the God of the scriptures would reject getting baptized after a conversion experience. It is a God given Grace, and therefore has value for anyone trying living in Faith with Christ.
P
PLeeD
Guest
Doesn’t Romans 14 suffice?
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Beautiful verses!
However, it still doesn’t answer the question as to how we know the Truth of what Scripture proclaims, when 2 different Christians, each claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, claim contrary doctrines.
In your paradigm we have 30,000 different interpretations of what Scripture says. That’s just what the Evil One ordered, IMHO.
You have given us the recipe for chaos and confusion regarding God’s revelation.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Ask her to prove her assertion.
Read to the end for the answer to Paul’s position on the efficacy of Baptism.
Acts 16:25-34 - The Philippian Jailer
The Philippian Jailer blew it. He missed a great chance to witness to Jesus. Well, here…let’s review the passage first:
Acts 16:25-34
25About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. 26Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody’s chains came loose. 27The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!”
29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.
As the scriptures clearly indicate, the Philippian jailer and the adult members of his household who were old enough to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and savior were already saved by their faith alone. (Regretfully, Luke was sloppy in his recounting of this incident and was not more careful to avoid giving the impression that minors may have been baptized, also.)
Getting baptized “immediately”, “at that hour of the night”, that is, “about midnight”, was a missed opportunity. The jailer should have waited a few weeks or until the next meeting of the local assembly when he could have been baptized in front of the entire congregation as a symbol of his salvation. This ceremony would have been more edifying for those who were already members of the Church.
I mean, why the rush? There was no time to witness to his friends with the exact date that he “got saved” or to invite them to attend the ceremony, no time to have his name printed in the bulletin, no party afterward…just a quick slam-dunk and it was over.
This whole, distasteful episode is at odds with how things would be done in the typical Bible church today. Why, the conversion of such an important official as the administrator of the local correctional facility would be quite a feather in the cap of any modern evangelist…what was Paul thinking?
Maybe he was thinking of his own conversion and how important it is to have one’s sins washed away in the waters of baptism (cf. Acts 22:16). Maybe he was thinking of the words of the Apostle Peter with whom he had conferred twice concerning the gospel message; the words that Peter used to clearly state “Baptism now saves you” (cf. 1 Peter 3:21).
P
PJM
Guest
Dear friend in Christ,
Where is the ev9idence of your positions. Especially Baptism. This was written AFTER the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. OF COURSE IT APPLIED TO HIS CHURCH< HIS FLOCK.
Your other point eludes me?
You sem to confident that you know more, know better than all the Saints and Doctors of the CC before you. That friend is PRIDE!
Love and prayers,
Pat
P
PRmerger
Guest
Sufficient? I see not a single word that looks like “sufficient” or any of the other synonyms you listed in that verse.
At any rate, even if we did believe that this verse says “sufficient”, does that mean that the books of Titus, Peter, Timothy are not sufficient, as they weren’t even written at the time this passage was written?
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
I keep getting drawn into these topics. And I always end up thinking
Indeed. It does seem fruitless at times as there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
But I believe that the Holy Spirit is calling us to continue to discuss and dialogue, even if it falls on “blind” postesr; there is benefit in continuing to discuss, as there are many lurkers here who may have never heard the Catholic position presented, nor heard any Catholic refute the standard Protestant objections to Catholicism. Now they know!
(Only 134 responses to this thread, yet I just checked how many Views this thread has had–over 1300. Clearly, many members are reading, digesting, pondering, yet not posting.)
J
JRKH
Guest
If this were the only reference then indeed it would have to suffice. But as I’m sure you are aware, this is NOT the only reference in Scripture on how to deal with disagreements, especially ones that touch upon salvation and/or “Teaching a False Gospel”.
If Romans 14 is sufficient then what are we to say about the matters dealt with in Acts 15? If that which Paul instructs in Romans is sufficient they why did not Paul invoke this in resolving the matter at Antioch without need for the council in Jerusalem?
Or - Why was this not the solution determined by the Council of Jerusalem?
Romans is indeed a beautiful sentiment that speaks to charity in our dealings with each other, but considering Christ’s own words recorded in Mt 18 and the actions of the Apostles and church elders in Acts 15, there would seem to be more to it than this.
It is important that we remember to take Scripture, in particular the NT, as a whole. Thus it is necessary that we consider Mt 18 Acts 15 Romans 14 and any other applicable passages as a “Whole cloth” so that we fully understand God’s desires in these matters.
Peace
James
P
PLeeD
Guest
Thanks for the reply. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. I think we agree on matters of baptism.
I would point out that it seems that the council in Acts 15 did apply the Romans 14 concept concerning the issue of compelling gentiles to follow circumcision and the law of Moses. The Jewish Christians believed that was as important to salvation as we may believe baptism to be. But, Peter and James, with agreement from Paul, essentially instructed the Jewish believers to “mind their own business” when it comes to the gentiles.
And, likewise, I don’t think the council told the Jews in the early church that they had to abandon all Jewish tradition either. So essentially, the two groups were instructed to tolerate each other’s differences, and each group should be “fully convinced in their own mind” that they are following Jesus.
Mt 18 (I assume you are talking about verses 15-20) starts with “If your brother sins against you”. It doesn’t say “If your brother teaches doctrine that you disagree with”. So I’d say Romans 14 still holds sway if Mt 18 is the only other source for direction.
Now, when it comes to “teaching false Gospel”, then I think it’s time to get riled up. IIRC, The bible references people who were “delivered to satan” for this. I’m just not sure that a disagreement over baptism rises to that level.
Regarding baptism; if the stated position of Catholicism is that it is possible to be saved without having been baptised, then does teaching that baptism is not necessary rise to the level of “false gospel”? I always considered the Gospel to be “believe in your heart and confess with your mouth” who Jesus is.
I guess in matters of the practice of baptism, I can agree to disagree with Christians who might not find it necessary. What is certain is that I wouldn’t call them words like “swine” or “heretic”.
J
JRKH
Guest
Thank you for you gnetle reply. I’m sure that we do agree on baptism, at least in the essentials.
I one sense I think you are correct, but in another, no. I know of no branch of Modern Christianity that sees circumcision as necessary for salvation. Certainly this can be traced to the council which, by it’s decsion, undermined the Judizers position. If circumcision is unnecessary for salvation in the “Gentile” Christians why would it be in the “Hebrew” Christians. So, while the council’s decsion may not have specifically forbade the Hebrews from continuing the pious practice of circumcision, the council’s decision DID, just as specifically remove circumcision from the level of “requirement”.
Would you agree that teaching a false Gospel is a sin? If it is a sin, is it not agianst the “Entire Body” of Christ, and therefore, is it not a sin against you as a part of that body?
Where matters of disagreement are difficult and obstinate, then Christ tells us to “Tell it to The Church”.
Frankly, on the matter of Baptism, I think that if most people on both sides really took the time to examine the issue they would find that they are in near perfect agreement on the matter. However, when there is obstinate disagreement, and neither side will budge, then it is time to “Tell it To The Church” and to be willing to accept the Church’s decision.
We do this to preserve the unity for which Christ prayed:
John 17:20-21
"I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
This is the reason that I brought up the matter of church authority in disputes. Both sides in this matter are arguing from scripture in support of their view. Assuming that both believe that they are “spirit guided” in their understanding of Scripture, then how does one resolve the issue (or any issue) so that the proper understanding of Scripture is known and taught.
Without the Authority of “The church” to settle such matters, unity is lost, and everyone winds up “agreeing to disagree” on everything.
If the Gospel is only this, then why do we need four of them along with the various other letters in the NT?
Regarding Baptism. Consider this…
The governement says that we must pay taxes. Yet there are both ordinary and extraordinary circumstances where we might not have to pay taxes. Because of these extreme cases of exemption, do we now say that paying taxes is not necessary?
The norm is that we must pay or taxes. When abnormal situations are encountered then they are addressed on a case by case basis.
Baptism is a similar situation. The norm is that baptism is necessary. It is taught as such so that no one treats it with lightly, for it IS necessary. However there are ordinary and extraordinary reasons why baptism is delayed. But the intent is to be baptized as soon as possible. If death occurs before the physical act then the intent suffices for the act.
The intent is submission and obedience to God.
I agree. Such labeling is counterproductive regardless of who engages in it.
Peace
James
- Status