S
Sola_C_F_G_S_DG
Guest
1 cor 15:17 if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
- Status
G
graceandglory
Guest
Not meaning to be disrespectful to Sola “everything but the Church,” but I thought that was funny.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Before I get around to addressing your new sola scriptura arguments…I’d just like to say that the power of sin over us died with Christ on the cross:*1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.*There is no reason for you to be offended by cascherman’s crucifix. It depicts a triumphant moment in the life of our Lord. I could see the devil gasping when he sees that image…but certainly you should not.
G
graceandglory
Guest
People will always be offended by the crucifix.
***** "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world."
Galatians 6:14
- ***"We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block ***to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
**1 Corinthians 1:23-24
**
The flesh is the hinge of salvation.
-Tertullian
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Well thought.
C
cascherman
Guest
Unfortunately for you, sir, Christ’s death on the cross for my sins means everything to me. I would like to be reminded of it every chance I get.
So, it will stay, I am sorry you refuse to converse with me over it. I didn’t know alike theology was required for debate, that wouldn’t give many things to debate about.
Also are you implying that the Father would not want us to remember his son’s death?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Hello, Sola. Again, I must state the obvious. Theopneustos means God-breathed with regard to Scripture. Scripture is God-breathed. Amen. But whether or not theopneustos occurs once in Scripture or not, does not create the word “only” in the text. 2 Tim 3:16 is an affirmative statement, not an exclusionary one: A is B. It does not mean nothing else is divinely inspired. Such a claim is simply not there.theopneustos. God-breathed. I forget the latin term, but this is one of those words that only occurs in one place. hence, the basis for the Protestant “only.” No other source is theopneustos. no other source has the life-breath of God breathed into it. Hence, if I may, everything else is “dead.” Why us anything but the theopneustos Scripture alone? you can’t explain the grammar without using the word “only” somewhere in your explanation.
Or, I guess you could always use “sola”
Take this for instance. Mary is called kekaritomene in Luke 1:28, the only occurrence of this perfect-passive-participle, literally “having been perfected in grace” (a full treatment here). Are we then to conclude Jesus was not perfected in grace? Only Mary because it is the only occurrence of kekaritomene in Scripture? Of course not. (FYI, even if you don’t accept a “Catholic” translation of kekaritomene, you can translate the word any way you want too: “full of grace”, “highly favored”, “favored one,” pick your translation…the point remains the same.)
p.s. the broken link you mentioned works fine for me.
p.s.s. Speaking of what contains the breath of God, don’t forget John 20:22 and go on to verse 23 while you’re at it…
God bless.
C
cascherman
Guest
Thanks, I was going there with that, but apparently I’m not worthy for discussion with Sola because of my beliefs.Hello, Sola. Again, I must state the obvious. Theopneustos means God-breathed with regard to Scripture. Scripture is God-breathed. Amen. But whether or not theopneustos occurs once in Scripture or not, does not create the word “only” in the text. 2 Tim 3:16 is an affirmative statement, not an exclusionary one: A is B. It does not mean nothing else is divinely inspired. Such a claim is simply not there.
Take this for instance. Mary is called kekaritomene in Luke 1:28, the only occurrence of this perfect-passive-participle, literally “having been perfected in grace” (a full treatment here). Are we then to conclude Jesus was not perfected in grace? Only Mary because it is the only occurrence of kekaritomene in Scripture? Of course not. (FYI, even if you don’t accept a “Catholic” translation of kekaritomene, you can translate the word any way you want too: “full of grace”, “highly favored”, “favored one,” pick your translation…the point remains the same.)
p.s. the broken link you mentioned works fine for me.
p.s.s. Speaking of what contains the breath of God, don’t forget John 20:22 and go on to verse 23 while you’re at it…
God bless.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
Is that why Pope Benedict XVI released an encyclical called ‘Spe Salvi’
SAVED BY HOPE in NOVEMBER?
So much for your unsupported comments. 2000 years of theology and you are presumptuous enough to say such a ridiculous thing. Get back to us when you have done a bit more research.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
“But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness”
If it was fine, and in fact acceptable, for the Apostle Paul, then I am fine with it. Who are you to tell anyone else otherwise?
God bless
G
graceandglory
Guest
Read it here!
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html
Papal Encyclicals are usually very protestant friendly.
Let us know what you think.
(in another thread, of course
)
S
Sola_C_F_G_S_DG
Guest
I believe it is exclusionary…is there anything else you can think of that Scripture says is divinely inspired?
Good thought, but gonna play my red-herring card here. let’s stick with theopneustos.
I think this cross reference/point should have been more developed than a PS. I think you might have been trying to show that apostles too have the breath of God.p.s. the broken link you mentioned works fine for me.
p.s.s. Speaking of what contains the breath of God, don’t forget John 20:22 and go on to verse 23 while you’re at it…
God bless.
This is a quote from the notes in the bottom of YOUR link:
“Finally, what is the relation of this incident in 20:22 to the account of the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2? It appears best to view these as two separate events which have two somewhat different purposes. This was the giving of life itself, which flowed out from within (cf. 7:38-39). The giving of power would occur later, on the day of Pentecost – power to witness and carry out the mission the disciples had been given. (It is important to remember that in the historical unfolding of God’s program for the church, these events occurred in a chronological sequence which, after the church has been established, is not repeatable today.)”
Note “the giving of power would occur later.” If you want to develop this point, it would be better to do so from Acts 2. But then you would still have to prove that when Jesus did it to the apostles it carries forth on down the line.
Jesus revealed and did many things with the apostles that he does not do with us. Huge catches of fish, walking on water, transfiguration, pentecost, walk through walls, etc.
THe divine “inspiration” of the apostles (if I may, though not necessarily conceding that point w/out further thought) stopped when they died. The divine inspiration of the Scriptures is the only one that is ongoing.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
Spe Salvi has nothing against Protestants, infact a lot of it points to the false ideals of marxism, however there was one bit regarding a translation from Greek which PBenedict XVI addressed that was in conflict between Protestants and Catholics, but he also quoted a Protestant exegete saying that the early protestant definition is now being rejected as more research was done into the matter and it was found to be more closely linked to the Catholic definition.Read it here!
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html
Papal Encyclicals are usually very protestant friendly.
Let us know what you think.
(in another thread, of course
It was in regards to ‘faith is substance of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen’
Martin Luther had apparently translated ‘proof’ more along the lines of ‘conviction’ because he understood it in a subjective sense, but the Greek word ‘elenchos’ had an objective sense of ‘proof’.
That was the only protestant related thing, and then again, it was not much, because he said the subjective sense is not wrong in itself, but it’s not the true meaning of the text.
S
Sola_C_F_G_S_DG
Guest
Friends, I can’t carry the hope discussion over a blog. 70% of communication is non-verbal. I would need to see your face, receive your eye contact, and hear your voice for this discussion. It’s one thing to discuss and debate doctrine, such as sola scriptura, but when it comes to the person and work of Jesus Christ, we’ll have to take that one up in person. I thought about starting a new thread, but this is not the right context for that discussion.
If you would like to meet at a coffee shop in Los Angeles to discuss instant message me. My treat.
Thanks
H
Harmony1988
Guest
Well I disagree, whilst debating in person, is obviously better, forum posts are equally good especially when most of us live 1000’s of miles apart.
I do understand however, that it must be rather overwhelming when there are so many Catholics posting things and you have to read over and counter argument most of them. It gets all a bit too confusing.
Cheers anyways
S
Sola_C_F_G_S_DG
Guest
Moving forward, and since no one is arguing my above statements on 2 Tim 3:16, the Protestant position is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand
Are we in agreement then
Are we in agreement then
H
Harmony1988
Guest
Hang on, you said you didn’t want to debate and now you want people to respond to your arguments?Moving forward, and since no one is arguing my above statements on 2 Tim 3:16, the Protestant position is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand
Are we in agreement then
Make up your mind, eitherways, I’ll have a look at what you are referring to now.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
In the gospel of John, I can’t remember the verse properly, but I think it was John 21:25 and it was something along the lines of ‘there were others thing that Jesus of Nazareth did that aren’t recorded’
How about oral tradition for starters as implied from John’s gospel. Just the fact that in scripture, it says that there are other things, just disproves sola scriptura. Sola scriptura theology needs to have scripture referencing what is needed as true, scripture doesn’t do that, and even if it did it would be circular reasoning, hence why scripture doesn’t do it and therefore it’s not sola scriptura.
Otherwise known as (proof by contradiction)
You dismiss the original greek scriptures as red herrings? Do you even understand that language matters? You can’t play your red herring card when it comes to the original scripts and their translation into English. Sorry, you can’t just weasel your way out of this. Refute his statement, or don’t speak at all, we don’t want to hear your countless arguments all the while not refuting ours.
The very fact that a Church once established has to be maintained is probably the best decider, also known implicitly as common sense. For a church to be maintained and kept in unity, it requires leadership, a leadership that is manifest in human beings since Christ does not live physically as a human being anyore.
I take a pragmatic approach. If Protestantism was true, there should only be one church with one theology, but there isn’t. ‘And by their works will you know them’ - Clearly Protestant theology isn’t living upto those expectations.
Jesus does reveal and work miracles in our lives, I’m sorry, if all you are looking for is magic like walking on water, then perhaps you may need to reread on what the Bible really teaches.
Furthermore Jesus did so as to show and hint at the disciples who he really was, they only really understood him later, it took miracles.
AS for us Catholics and Protestants alike, we don’t need people running on water now to believe in Jesus, we already regard scripture as authentic.
Ok so much for that argument of yours.
S
Sola_C_F_G_S_DG
Guest
I want to debate Sola Scriptura per the title of the thread. I do not want to debate the hope issue on this thread. I have been debating Sola Scriptura with Marco Polo this whole time and everyone kept wanting to sidetrack me on the hope issue.
S
Sola_C_F_G_S_DG
Guest
Have you ever debated sola scriptura before?
- Status