Discussing Scripture contents.

[Reformed]

Prodigal Son 1:

I understand your position regarding the “dangers” as you call it of private interpretation, however, I have to disagree with this position.

First, for any student of the Bible private interpretation is the natural result of reading the text. However, we will grow in grace, our understanding of things will mature, etc.

Certainly it is valuable reading the writings of great theologians, for me Calvin was among if not the greatest of them. However, nothing replaces Bible study and coming to an understanding of the truth in a natural way.

I’ve read the Catholics greats (Augustine & Aquinas being my two favorites), Wesley, Jacob Arminius, Calvin, Sproul, etc. However, I still learn new things every day.

For example, just today I heard a sermon on Sodom and Lot and immediately related it to a discussion I had on this board regarding purgatory and 1 Cor. 3:15. I also defended a challenge, which used John 15:1-6 to refute the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. It was a good challenge to the doctrine, but ultimately it strengthened my belief in it. It came to mind that Moses and even Peter had doubts that God would carry through and paid for those doubts. Moses never entered the promised land, Peter fell in the water he was walking on.

If we don’t try to understand these things with our own mind it just seems like we will never really understand them at all – at least with any depth. I’m not sure if this would necessarily go against RCC teaching but it might? At any rate this methodology just makes more sense to me.

I believe Sola Scriptura and I are very like minded on the essentials.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe Sola Scriptura and I are very like minded on the essentials.

That doesn’t respond to any points I brought up.

With what I’ve seen of Reformed’s posts, he throws one or two verses out and often seems to be missing the context of what is being said. When someone provides the passage or chapter and explains the context, he doesn’t respond but continues saying the same things and provides links to massive amounts of information for one to discern what he is trying to get across. This appears to be he doesn’t know what the information actually states and throws it out there because it comes from a Protestant source. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to quote the part he using to support his view and provide a link to that particular page for others to then research?

Besides my comments above, simply other’s statements are like minded with yours provides nothing on your part.

You didn’t even address the grace discussion you started, that sola-scriptura and I found some common ground on.

In my opinion, you have hurt your credibility by refusing to address any issues directly. It appears you may have an agenda other than sharing beliefs.

 

[Reformed]

That doesn’t respond to any points I brought up.

Besides my comments above, simply other’s statements are like minded with yours provides nothing on your part.

You didn’t even address the grace discussion you started, that sola-scriptura and I found some common ground on.

In my opinion, you have hurt your credibility by refusing to address any issues directly. It appears you may have an agenda other than sharing beliefs.

I think my friend, that we all have various amount of time to spend on this site. The Christian Faith is very uniformed. I have posted a site for you to study if you wish. Christianity is not about me and you. God is completely sovereign, and His elect will hear His voice…to the praise of His glorious grace! Here is the site again if you want to study the truth.

monergism.com/

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think my friend, that we all have various amount of time to spend on this site. The Christian Faith is very uniformed. I have posted a site for you to study if you wish. Christianity is not about me and you. God is completely sovereign, and His elect will hear His voice…to the praise of His glorious grace! Here is the site again if you want to study the truth.

monergism.com/

Again, no answers and no I’m not reading through a massive amount of misinterpretations to search for what you think you believe.

I think by your response, or lack of, everyone can see your true agenda. I won’t be responding to your short speculations or innuendos, I will however be watching to keep you honest in reference to the rules and policies of this forum.

 

[PerryJ]

I think my friend, that we all have various amount of time to spend on this site. The Christian Faith is very uniformed. I have posted a site for you to study if you wish. Christianity is not about me and you. God is completely sovereign, and His elect will hear His voice…to the praise of His glorious grace! Here is the site again if you want to study the truth.

monergism.com/

I just read this thread from the beginning and it seems that you challenge and then change the subject. If you wish to pick a point pick one and stay with it.

 

[love4mary]

First let me start by saying,That is the cutest dog-I love hounds:thumbsup:

Second, I like your idea concerning this thread but fear it will turn ugly fast. POST MORE PUPPY PICS

Now on to Peter and his wife. Yes, as a Catholic, scripture is clear that Peter indeed had a wife and Mother-N-Law (hope his was nicer then mine ) More then likely, the majority of the Apostles may have been married, who knows. No mention of children though, so we can only speculate upon that.

As to pretending to be a Protestant, I am not sure how to go about doing that or why I should, but I am open minded enough (though not enough that my brain will fall out) to see both points of view.

 

[wmscott]

I prefer the Scriptures over Catholic commentaries. Check out the Scriptures and how Mary rejoices in God her Savior. Mary, like all regenerate Christians rejoices in God our Savior because we are all sinners saved by grace. The Catholic interpertation is just a personal interpertation too.

Luke 1

Mary’s Song of Praise: The Magnificat
46 And Mary said,

“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”

56 And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her home.

Here again is where you go off track. The “Catholic commentaries” as you call them are part of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in addition to the teachings of the ECFs, who support and correctly applied the correct interpretations. These “Catholic commentaries” were a part of the Catholic Church long before they were made available in the Bible. It appears that you can’t see the big picture simply because you are tunnel versioned into your own personal opinions or prejudices of the CC without the proper teaching authority to fall back on when you are in error. These “Catholic commentaries” were in place almost from the beginning, more than 1400 years before Protestantism What you do not understand is that the Blessed Mother was conceived and born without the stain of original sin and remained sinless until her Assumption into heaven. You cant be blamed though because you have no Christ instituted Teaching Authority to fall back on as the CC does and this is why there are over 33K differing interpretations among Protestantism.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Here again is where you go off track. The “Catholic commentaries” as you call them are part of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in addition to the teachings of the ECFs, who support and correctly applied the correct interpretations. These “Catholic commentaries” were a part of the Catholic Church long before they were made available in the Bible. It appears that you can’t see the big picture simply because you are tunnel versioned into your own personal opinions or prejudices of the CC without the proper teaching authority to fall back on when you are in error. These “Catholic commentaries” were in place almost from the beginning, more than 1400 years before Protestantism What you do not understand is that the Blessed Mother was conceived and born without the stain of original sin and remained sinless until her Assumption into heaven. You cant be blamed though because you have no Christ instituted Teaching Authority to fall back on as the CC does and this is why there are over 33K differing interpretations among Protestantism.

Do you think the Catholic Church has remained consistent over the centuries? For instance does the RCC still hold to the doctrine of predestination as espoused by Augustine (remember, they rejected Pelagianism at the Counsel of Carthage)?

 

[PerryJ]

Do you think the Catholic Church has remained consistent over the centuries? For instance does the RCC still hold to the doctrine of predestination as espoused by Augustine (remember, they rejected Pelagianism at the Counsel of Carthage)?

The Catholic Church stands against double predestination not predestination. It is not in conflict with Augustine.

 

[sola_scriptura]

*Can. 3.2 “If any man says that the grace of God, by which man is justified through Jesus Christ, is only effectual for the forgiveness of sins already committed, but is of no avail for avoiding sin in the future, let him be anathema.”

Can. 4 “If any man says that this grace only helps not to sin, in so far that by it we obtain a better insight into the
Divine commands, and learn what we should desire and avoid, but does not also give the power gladly to do and to fulfil what we have seen to be good, let him be anathema.”

Can. 5 “If any man says that the grace of justification was given us in order that we might the more easily fulfil that which we are bound to do by the power of free will, so that we could, even without grace, only not so easily, fulfil the Divine commands, let him be anathema.”

seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Council_Of_Carthage_May_1_418.html (link provided at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage)).

Pursuant to the papal command, there was held on 1 May, 418, in the presence of 200 bishops, the famous Council of Carthage, which again branded Pelagianism as a heresy in eight (or nine) canons (Denzinger, “Enchir.”, 10th ed., 1908, 101-8). Owing to their importance they may be summarized:

1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God’s commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5. Without God’s grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, “Forgive us our trespasses”, not only to others, but also to themselves.
8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
9. Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a “middle place” (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the “kingdom of heaven” and from “eternal life”.

These clearly worded canons, which (except the last-named) afterwards came to be articles of faith binding on the universal Church, gave the death blow to Pelagianism; sooner or later it would bleed to death.

newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm*

Give me a few minutes I will show Augustine indeed preached “double predestination”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think my friend, that we all have various amount of time to spend on this site. The Christian Faith is very uniformed. I have posted a site for you to study if you wish. Christianity is not about me and you. God is completely sovereign, and His elect will hear His voice…to the praise of His glorious grace! Here is the site again if you want to study the truth.

monergism.com/

Interesting article I found on your suggested website concerning, “The Bible Alone"? Not for John Calvin!”

See excerpts below:

Worth asking, however, is whether we really understand what Sola Scriptura means within the church itself. Does this Reformation principle mean that the Bible yields up obvious answers to all our questions? That we need not turn to any interpretation of Scripture other than the conclusions each of us draws from our own common-sense interaction with Scripture? That the great teachers in the church’s earlier eras—the “church fathers”—should have nothing to say to us today, for they represent nothing but “human traditions”?

Looks like questions Catholics ask…

Clearly even the most conservative believers have never been able to live as if they are not influenced by the teachings of other people—past and present—on how to interpret their Bibles. Everybody reads through a set of lenses created by the church, the family, and the schools that have shaped them.

Interesting thought the author brings up above.

Of course, evangelicals have expended tremendous resources of scholarship on trying to determine the most basic, literal meanings of any given Bible passage. They have rejected outright the fanciful, allegorical interpretations of many medieval exegetes.

But there come issues—more numerous than some are willing to admit—where the Bible yields its direction more reluctantly. For faithfully Biblical answers to these questions, we are thrown back on the resources of church tradition.

Am I reading the second paragraph correctly, or is the author stating Biblical answers rely on Church tradition?

And here’s the shocker (maybe): the very Reformation teachers who created the principle of the supreme authority of Scripture—sola scriptura—not only recognized this need for a strong, churchly tradition of Biblical interpretation, they embraced it. They were just as convinced as we are that the Bible ought to speak to every aspect of life (heavens, they stood on the shoulders of a millennium-long Christendom tradition of church-state alliance!) But they knew that in addressing both churchly and worldly questions, if you wanted to find the “Christian Way” you had to hold a conversation with pious interpreters from past ages.

Seems more like a Catholic explanation to me, are you sure you sent me to the right website?

“Finally, the Reformation was not an argument about everything, but about just some things. It was not, for example, about the Trinity or the two natures of Christ. The Protestants had their own slant on these doctrines, but they agreed basically with Roman Catholics. Both confessed the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. And if we ask where these accepted doctrines came from—they came from the Fathers’ reflections on the Bible!”

Maybe you should spend time reading what you’re recommending us to read as support for your arguments.

 

[Reformed]

Interesting article I found on your suggested website concerning, “The Bible Alone"? Not for John Calvin!”

See excerpts below:

Looks like questions Catholics ask…

Interesting thought the author brings up above.

Am I reading the second paragraph correctly, or is the author stating Biblical answers rely on Church tradition?

Seems more like a Catholic explanation to me, are you sure you sent me to the right website?

Maybe you should spend time reading what you’re recommending us to read as support for your arguments.

Have you read the later writings of Calvin,Luther, and other Reformers in regards to Rome and the Pope? I’m sure those pieces of work would not be allowed on this site!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Have you read the later writings of Calvin,Luther, and other Reformers in regards to Rome and the Pope? I’m sure those pieces of work would not be allowed on this site!

You told me to research some of the website you offered up which I did. I can’t help it if the author agreed with me.

I guess that’s what happens when you refer someone to a website at large and not to a particular source to support some idea you’re trying to get across.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The Catholic Church stands against double predestination not predestination. It is not in conflict with Augustine.

This much is true. The Thomistic school seems to follow Augustine’s theology heavily; and of course, the Augustinian order.

It just doesn’t receive much practical application in the theology of Rome in toto (then again, we as Lutherans don’t tend to focus on it too much either).

 

[PerryJ]

Have you read the later writings of Calvin,Luther, and other Reformers in regards to Rome and the Pope? I’m sure those pieces of work would not be allowed on this site!

Are you stating you have faith in Calvin, Luther and other reformers instead of Christ? Interesting that a bible christian that believes in Sola Scriptura has to go to others to understand the Bible. Isn’t this against everything you hold dear?

I guess you decided not to pick a point and discuss it with us. I don’t see a new thread.

Would like to discuss Sola Scriptura?

Would you like to discuss how you got the Bible from the Catholic Church?

Pick a topic? Would you like to discuss Luther, Calvin anyone else?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you stating you have faith in Calvin, Luther and other reformers instead of Christ? Interesting that a bible christian that believes in Sola Scriptura has to go to others to understand the Bible. Isn’t this against everything you hold dear?

I guess you decided not to pick a point and discuss it with us. I don’t see a new thread.

Would like to discuss Sola Scriptura?

Would you like to discuss how you got the Bible from the Catholic Church?

Pick a topic? Would you like to discuss Luther, Calvin anyone else?

Reformed told me on another forum he had never thought about how the Bible came to be one complete book from the letters and epistles that were written years after the death and resurrection of Christ other than it was God’s will. He told me this when I asked him to explain the instruments that brought the Bible together to be one complete book. And he’s the one that professes to love the Bible.

 

[PerryJ]

Reformed told me on another forum he had never thought about how the Bible came to be one complete book from the letters and epistles that were written years after the death and resurrection of Christ other than it was God’s will. He told me this when I asked him to explain the instruments that brought the Bible together to be one complete book. And he’s the one that professes to love the Bible.

Reformed,

Knowing how the Bible was formed is essential in understanding the Bible. Do you know how many variants there are in the Bible? Did you know that there are more variants than words. I am not even including mispellings.

Do you know who translated your Bible? Where they intentionally changed it?

Do you know that the Protestant Bible was created by a mistake of Jerome’s. This mistake is now a historical fact. I am assuming you have a Protestant Bible, which, means you are not even reading the whole Bible.

If you profess that you love the word of the Lord you need to understand it and how your specific Bible was created. It did not drop out of the sky.

 

[JRKH]

Let’s stop goofing around! It’s time to discuss the actual contents of the Scriptures. How do are personal beliefs hold up to the light of Scripture? This thread is about searching the Scriptures together to see if what we personally believe is true.

I am coming late to this thread and have not reviewed all of the posts. therefore I don’t know what things have, or have not been brought up.

With that caveat I will state that the basic premise of your question is wrong when discussing our beliefs as catholics. It is your desire that we prove things “By Scripture”. That is a false promise since the Bible is a product of the Church and not the other way around.

The Timeline Goes:
Christ Came
Christ Established a Church based upon Oral Tradition (he wrote nothing down)
The Early Church Taught by Oral Tradition, and by Letter.
Church Members Clsoe to the Apostles, wrote down SOME of the memiors of Jesus. (John makes it Crystal Clear that not everything known to the apostles was written down)
Some 400 years After Christ’s Birth, and after the Church was already widespread and functioning in a highly organized and disciplined manner, did the Leaders of The Church Codify the Books to be accepted as Sacred and included in the Holy Bible.

Thus it can be seen that, with nearly 400 years of Spirit Protected, Christian teachng and tradition behind it, The Church, the physical body of Christ on earth both precedes and exceeds the Bible both in Doctrine and Understanding of God’s revealed Truth.

You are asking us to try and fold 2000 years of Church teaching, and understanding of God’s Truth into a single volume of that Church. Then when something is not shown clearly enough to convince you, you will wish to reject the Church for being “non-biblical”.

Please note above that I am using “you” in the general sense and not in a personal sense.

Peace
James

 

[qui_est_ce]

You told me to research some of the website you offered up which I did. I can’t help it if the author agreed with me.

I guess that’s what happens when you refer someone to a website at large and not to a particular source to support some idea you’re trying to get across.

Prodigal Son 1 Don’t you know Reformed thinks Catholics don’t read? Whenever we come up with an answer, he changes the subject. He never really addressed any answers, just throws Scripture verses around, as though Catholics have never heard of them. CC does not disput a single verse of the Scripture he throws out.

This is his reply to your reading of another site he asked you to read!!!

Reformed:

Have you read the later writings of Calvin,Luther, and other Reformers in regards to Rome and the Pope? I’m sure those pieces of work would not be allowed on this site!

Reformed:

I think my friend, that we all have various amount of time to spend on this site. The Christian Faith is very uniformed. I have posted a site for you to study if you wish. Christianity is not about me and you. God is completely sovereign, and His elect will hear His voice…to the praise of His glorious grace! Here is the site again if you want to study the truth.

monergism.com/
Prodigal Son:

Interesting article I found on your suggested website concerning, “The Bible Alone”? Not for John Calvin!"

See excerpts below:
wbsite provided by Reformed:

Worth asking, however, is whether we really understand what Sola Scriptura means within the church itself. Does this Reformation principle mean that the Bible yields up obvious answers to all our questions? That we need not turn to any interpretation of Scripture other than the conclusions each of us draws from our own common-sense interaction with Scripture? That the great teachers in the church’s earlier eras—the “church fathers”—should have nothing to say to us today, for they represent nothing but “human traditions”?
Prodigal Son:

Looks like questions Catholics ask…
website provided by Reformed:

Clearly even the most conservative believers have never been able to live as if they are not influenced by the teachings of other people—past and present—on how to interpret their Bibles. Everybody reads through a set of lenses created by the church, the family, and the schools that have shaped them.
Prodigal Son:

Interesting thought the author brings up above.]

website provided by Reformed:

Of course, evangelicals have expended tremendous resources of scholarship on trying to determine the most basic, literal meanings of any given Bible passage. They have rejected outright the fanciful, allegorical interpretations of many medieval exegetes.

But there come issues—more numerous than some are willing to admit—where the Bible yields its direction more reluctantly. For faithfully Biblical answers to these questions, we are thrown back on the resources of church tradition.
Prodigal Son:

Am I reading the second paragraph correctly, or is the author stating Biblical answers rely on Church tradition?

And here’s the shocker (maybe):
website provided by Reformed:

the very Reformation teachers who created the principle of the supreme authority of Scripture—sola scriptura—not only recognized this need for a strong, churchly tradition of Biblical interpretation, they embraced it. They were just as convinced as we are that the Bible ought to speak to every aspect of life (heavens, they stood on the shoulders of a millennium-long Christendom tradition of church-state alliance!) But they knew that in addressing both churchly and worldly questions, if you wanted to find the “Christian Way” you had to hold a conversation with pious interpreters from past ages.
Prodigal Son:

Seems more like a Catholic explanation to me, are you sure you sent me to the right website?

{snip}Maybe you should spend time reading what you’re recommending us to read as support for your arguments.

Reformed:

Have you read the later writings of Calvin,Luther, and other Reformers in regards to Rome and the Pope? I’m sure those pieces of work would not be allowed on this site!

He can’t get it through his skull that when he signed onto the Forum, he agreed he would not have an agenda (his agenda is to prosetize Catholics away from their faith with lies). And he would be respectful of the CC. Telling lies is not very respectful.