How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[Tanner9188]

Hi Tanner
Actually I think I did answer the question. You see, St. Paul’s message of “hope” is seen throughout the New Testament quote above, Romans 12:12, 15:4, 15:13, 1 Co. 9:10, 13:13, 15:19, Galatians 5:5, Ephesians 1:18, Colossians 1:5, 1:27, 1 Timothy 1:1, Titus 1:2, 3:7, etc. [Edited}11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope

unto the end:-Hebrews 6:11
As far as what you do with the Romans verses you put forth, I think I answered the question, [edited].[Edited] After all why hope when you already know? Go back to reread your passages and insert the word Jesus; wherever you see the word hope and see if you come away with a different understanding; it won’t always refer to Jesus, but many times it will-try it for fun and see.

**Does that answer your question?**No it does not; otherwise I wouldn’t have asked. It does reveal how your mind thinks when it comes to Scripture. You did not see the word assurance; therefore it must not be true?

There are certain precepts taught in Scripture; such has the Doctrine of Election, which is easily demonstrated in Scripture. Therefore; if you read something that appears to contradict what you know is true, “like fallen from grace” seems to contradict assurance or election, and you know Scripture does not contradict itself, then you must look at the apparent contradiction more closely because you know there is truth there; therefore you know you don’t have it correct; therefore you must begin to put the whole of Scripture and begin to look at other passages with the same truth or apparent contradiction to reach the correct contextual truth that appeared to be a contradiction. What is nice is that once you figure it out; you now have another truth revealed to you and a deeper understanding and appreciation for Him and His word.

The more diligent one is at this, the more truth will be revealed. Another example; we know Christ builds His church; we know the church is the body of true believers in Jesus and we also know that individual members that make the church referred in a variety of ways, such as true disciples, living stones, royal priests, chosen race, person of God for God’s own possession, sheep, the called,and the elect.

1 Peter 2:5 "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

This passage from Peter is really chuck full of good stuff; first the believer is a “living stone”; the church is referred to as a “spiritual house” (true believers have unity in spirit and truth; the same way were are told to worship) why? It’s through Christ via the indwelling Holy Spirit. That verse if put in the correct grammatical setting would read differently; many passages in Scripture are arranged in a manner that makes it easy to miss the truth, but I believe this is one way God separates the tares and the wheat; just like Jesus used parables intentional to keep the blind-blind and allow understanding and give correct insight to others.

What do we know about the names of Jesus and His role concerning individuals that are His and the body? Head of the body, Chief Cornerstone, foundation, true Vine, High Priest, Chief Shepherd and Shepherd to name a few.

What are believers called to do? Worship God in spirit and truth. Proclaim the gospel to all the world; this is done in many ways, but primarily how you live your new life. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

I say all this to bring an important point concerning the passage of Matthew 16:18
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” The Apostles and prophets were assigned special roles as spokesperson for the revelation that God would bring to all men; particularly the NT; they were able to perform miracles and wonders in order to get the church moving; but not till the Holy Spirit descended into the earth and Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father. So who builds the church? Jesus or this one apostle? Were Peter’s characteristics more like Jesus or a believer? Are believers called to do the same thing as Peter and the rest of the apostles and true disciples. Would one person ever be converted by Peter or the other disciples without God? Can we present and convert without the Holy Spirit/God? Can we convert via the Holy Spirit? Isn’t that how Peter and the rest did? The point is this; Peter did not build the church; God did and used Peter, the other apostles and all believers to get the message concerning the ROCK or the Head of the church, but it is the Holy Spirit/God that does the converting. Peter is but one stone of many stones that make up the “church”. All believers are stones, with each stone having a different purpose, most are common and a few are used in very special ways, like Peter was. In the end, it is God who builds His church. The confession that Peter made; that Jesus is the Christ, which is the Messiah, which is the builder of the church. Peter was immediately given a reward; just as all who are called and make that same profession; we are given the privilege to be used by God to build His church. Jesus went further to elaborate; I will give you the keys!..the keys to what; the entrance into the kingdom; we are all privileged to have these keys in this same sense. Present the message and if accepted you allow them into the kingdom and heaven is already in agreement; reject the Christ and His gospel, then the door is locked to prevent entrance into the kingdom and all of heaven is in agreement.

 

[erikd]

**

You did not answer the question.**

Hi again, Tanner.

Since I already answered your question, and you obviously appreciate having questions answered, how about answering a couple of mine? Back on 6-28-09 on post 480, I posed some questions which you did not attempt to answer. I will give you the benefit of doubt in thinking that it was because you were too busy doing the same thing on other threads. Anyway, I’ve asked several questions in that post as well as subsequent posts, a lot of which have not yet been answered. I think that everyone in this forum would be happy to have a meaningful discussion with someone not of their faith, as long as it’s a dialogue. When certain people ask questions and answer opposing questions, while others avoid answering, that’s called a monologue. Hope to hear from you.

 

[Tanner9188]

I would encourage all Poster to read post #580 in its entirety and meditate on it!

 

[teak421]

I would encourage all Poster to read post #580 in its entirety and meditate on it!

Me done… or, I will try to be done until you actually answer my questions. Good luck in your journey!

• Michael

 

[Tanner9188]

Hi again, Tanner.

Since I already answered your question, and you obviously appreciate having questions answered, how about answering a couple of mine? Back on 6-28-09 on post 480, I posed some questions which you did not attempt to answer. I will give you the benefit of doubt in thinking that it was because you were too busy doing the same thing on other threads. Anyway, I’ve asked several questions in that post as well as subsequent posts, a lot of which have not yet been answered. I think that everyone in this forum would be happy to have a meaningful discussion with someone not of their faith, as long as it’s a dialogue. When certain people ask questions and answer opposing questions, while others avoid answering, that’s called a monologue. Hope to hear from you.

**As I have mentioned several times on different threads; I am overwhelmed and have limited time; therefore I do overlook and miss things, which I try not to do and ask you to forgive me and also restate the question(s), which you feel I did not answer. At some point I plan to limit the threads I’m involved so I can avoid this problem. you are not the first to bring this up and I do appreciate it, but have patience and bring up the question(s) again. i know you referenced a post #, but it would be easier if you just ask the question again so I can move forward and not backwards.

Thanks for your patience and understanding and God bless you!

Tanner**

 

[erikd]

**Go back to reread your passages and insert the word Jesus; wherever you see the word hope and see if you come away with a different understanding; it won’t always refer to Jesus, but many times it will-try it for fun and see.**No it does not; otherwise I wouldn’t have asked. It does reveal how your mind thinks when it comes to Scripture. You did not see the word assurance; therefore it must not be true?

There are certain precepts taught in Scripture; such has the Doctrine of Election, which is easily demonstrated in Scripture. Therefore; if you read something that appears to contradict what you know is true, “like fallen from grace” seems to contradict assurance or election, and you know Scripture does not contradict itself, then you must look at the apparent contradiction more closely because you know there is truth there; therefore you know you don’t have it correct; therefore you must begin to put the whole of Scripture and begin to look at other passages with the same truth or apparent contradiction to reach the correct contextual truth that appeared to be a contradiction. What is nice is that once you figure it out; you now have another truth revealed to you and a deeper understanding and appreciation for Him and His word.

The more diligent one is at this, the more truth will be revealed. Another example; we know Christ builds His church; we know the church is the body of true believers in Jesus and we also know that individual members that make the church referred in a variety of ways, such as true disciples, living stones, royal priests, chosen race, person of God for God’s own possession, sheep, the called,and the elect.

1 Peter 2:5 "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

This passage from Peter is really chuck full of good stuff; first the believer is a “living stone”; the church is referred to as a “spiritual house” (true believers have unity in spirit and truth; the same way were are told to worship) why? It’s through Christ via the indwelling Holy Spirit. That verse if put in the correct grammatical setting would read differently; many passages in Scripture are arranged in a manner that makes it easy to miss the truth, but I believe this is one way God separates the tares and the wheat; just like Jesus used parables intentional to keep the blind-blind and allow understanding and give correct insight to others.

What do we know about the names of Jesus and His role concerning individuals that are His and the body? Head of the body, Chief Cornerstone, foundation, true Vine, High Priest, Chief Shepherd and Shepherd to name a few.

What are believers called to do? Worship God in spirit and truth. Proclaim the gospel to all the world; this is done in many ways, but primarily how you live your new life. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

I say all this to bring an important point concerning the passage of Matthew 16:18
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” The Apostles and prophets were assigned special roles as spokesperson for the revelation that God would bring to all men; particularly the NT; they were able to perform miracles and wonders in order to get the church moving; but not till the Holy Spirit descended into the earth and Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father. So who builds the church? Jesus or this one apostle? Were Peter’s characteristics more like Jesus or a believer? Are believers called to do the same thing as Peter and the rest of the apostles and true disciples. Would one person ever be converted by Peter or the other disciples without God? Can we present and convert without the Holy Spirit/God? Can we convert via the Holy Spirit? Isn’t that how Peter and the rest did? The point is this; Peter did not build the church; God did and used Peter, the other apostles and all believers to get the message concerning the ROCK or the Head of the church, but it is the Holy Spirit/God that does the converting. Peter is but one stone of many stones that make up the “church”. All believers are stones, with each stone having a different purpose, most are common and a few are used in very special ways, like Peter was. In the end, it is God who builds His church. The confession that Peter made; that Jesus is the Christ, which is the Messiah, which is the builder of the church. Peter was immediately given a reward; just as all who are called and make that same profession; we are given the privilege to be used by God to build His church. Jesus went further to elaborate; I will give you the keys!..the keys to what; the entrance into the kingdom; we are all privileged to have these keys in this same sense. Present the message and if accepted you allow them into the kingdom and heaven is already in agreement; reject the Christ and His gospel, then the door is locked to prevent entrance into the kingdom and all of heaven is in agreement.

Tanner:

1: On what authority do you base your teachings? (If you say the Holy Spirit you must explain how others, who call themselves Christian, and who read the same Bible, get a different explanation of events).

2: Is this authority fallible or infallible? (Again if you say infallible because it is the Holy Spirit please explain the different beliefs within Christianity, when the majority of these believers claim to be guided by the same Holy Spirit and are reading the same Bible)

3: Is it possible that you are wrong?

4: Have you given any thought to the possibility of being wrong and therefore standing up against the Church that Christ built?

 

[teak421]

Tanner:

1: On what authority do you base your teachings? (If you say the Holy Spirit you must explain how others, who call themselves Christian, and who read the same Bible, get a different explanation of events).

2: Is this authority fallible or infallible? (Again if you say infallible because it is the Holy Spirit please explain the different beliefs within Christianity, when the majority of these believers claim to be guided by the same Holy Spirit and are reading the same Bible)

3: Is it possible that you are wrong?

4: Have you given any thought to the possibility of being wrong and therefore standing up against the Church that Christ built?

That’s a good list Tanner to move forward on. Thanks!

• Michael

 

[erikd]

I also believe that Jesus is my Savior. What exactly does that mean? What does it mean to believe in Jesus? This is perhaps the most misunderstood philosophy of the modern era. It is one thing to say that you believe in Jesus as your personal Savior, it is quite another to say that you understand what Jesus is really asking of us. Consider this: If the Bible is inerrant, if the Bible cannot have contradictions, than how do you justify your belief with the following quotes:

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word (o. rhema) that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
Mt. 4: 4

I start with this to make a point: All the words of God need to be taken into account, not just the ones that seem most convenient.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, all of you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mt. 5: 20

Where does it say that this person is a non-believer? Righteousness could refer to a believer who does unrighteous works, could it not?

21 All of you have heard that it was said of them of old time, You shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Mt. 5: 21-22

Where does it say that this person is a non-believer? Where does it say this person has not accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior? Can’t this person be a believer?

30 And if your right hand offend you, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell.
Mt. 5: 30

Where does it say that this person is a non-believer?

48 Be all of you therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Mt. 5: 48

Where does it say that all you have to do is believe?

25 Agree with yours adversary quickly, while you are in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto you, You shall by no means come out thence, till you have paid the uttermost farthing.
Mt. 5: 25-26

Where does is say that all you need to do is just believe? Remember, just two verses above that Jesus mentions hell, so he’s not talking here about an earthly prison.

36 But I say unto you, That every idle word (o. rhema) that men shall speak, they shall give account (o. logos) thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by your words (o. logos) you shall be justified, and by your words (o. logos) you shall be condemned.
Mt. 5: 36-37

Where does it say the condemned is an unbeliever? Where does it say the condemned has not accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior? Idle words could come from a believer could they not?

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Mt. 13: 41-43

Where does it say that the un-righteous are unbelievers? Where does it say that “all things that offend” refer only to non-believers? Don’t you know any believers who sin? Isn’t a sin an offense?

47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mt. 13: 47-50

Seems to be talking about good and bad; not the believer and the unbeliever.

If you’re looking for verses which tell you exactly what you need to do, perhaps these three might be useful. Faith and works are necessary here, and these verses are not in contradiction with any other verse, when taken in correct context.

21 Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. (works)
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you (faith): depart from me, all of you that work iniquity.
Mt. 7: 21-23

You see, in the three verses above, Jesus flat out tells us that without faith, we have nothing. On that point, I think we agree. But Jesus also tells us that unless you do the will of the Father in heaven, you shall not enter the kingdom. Perhaps a full belief in Jesus means not just belief but also obedience? The real challenge of understanding Scripture is reading things in context. One line verses are only effective if they are not in contradiction to anything else within the Bible. Verses 21-23, for instance, portray the importance of both faith and works, with the emphasis on faith. However, nowhere in the Bible does it say saved by faith alone. If it did, it would be contradictory to verse 21 above.

 

[Tanner9188]

Exactly! In 325 the Bible was not compiled yet. AND, in 325 is when a COUNCIL decided to dismiss that hearsay known as Arianism, denying Jesus is God. I bring this up to refute your earlier statements that Councils confirm the Bible, how is this possible in 325 when there was no agreed upon Bible?

It was the Church that determined that Jesus was God.

• Michael

**Darn; no credit for making an attempt and research on your side of the coin? Actually; Jesus stated He was God. A group of people determined this is true based on what was already written. It was always in the Word of God; but it took some people to show it and make the point; likewise sola scriptura has always been there; it just took some people to make the point from what was already written. There are no new doctrines invented when one sticks to the special revelation; new doctrines are invented by men when things are added or subtracted from the revelation god gave to us.

I’ve got to run and I am way behind in answering posts! blessing and will talk at you soon; Lord willing. **

 

[erikd]

**I’ve got to run and I am way behind in answering posts! blessing and will talk at you soon; Lord willing. **

That felt like a “hit and run”

 

[teak421]

**Darn; no credit for making an attempt and research on your side of the coin? Actually; Jesus stated He was God. A group of people determined this is true based on what was already written. It was always in the Word of God; but it took some people to show it and make the point; likewise sola scriptura has always been there; it just took some people to make the point from what was already written. There are no new doctrines invented when one sticks to the special revelation; new doctrines are invented by men when things are added or subtracted from the revelation god gave to us.

I’ve got to run and I am way behind in answering posts! blessing and will talk at you soon; Lord willing. **

No new doctrines?

1. Calvinism
2. Once saved always saved
3. Must speak in tongues to be saved
4. Must be baptized in Jesus’s name to be saved
5. Can lose your salvation.

of COURSE there were new doctrines BECAUSE of Sola Scriptura.

Thanks for answering by the way and have a great day.

• Michael

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity � rooted in the apostolic succession53 � between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: �This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as �the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15).

This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him�.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that �outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth�,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that �they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church�.57

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

�The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection � divided, yet in some way one � of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach�.64 In fact, �the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities�.65 �

Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church�.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but �in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history�.67 Quotss= Pope Benedict XVI.

Quote =onenow1 Just something to think on.

Peace onenow1opcorn:

 

[erikd]

Hi, All
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity � rooted in the apostolic succession53 � between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: �This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as �the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15).

This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him�.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that �outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth�,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that �they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church�.57

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

�The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection � divided, yet in some way one � of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach�.64 In fact, �the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities�.65 �

Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church�.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but �in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history�.67 Quotss= Pope Benedict XVI.

Quote =onenow1 Just something to think on.

Peace onenow1opcorn:

Exactly why I pray for conversions to the “Fullness of the Truth” and the “Fullness of Faith” every day. Steve Ray described this lack of unity once as “an arm here, a leg there.” I pray for the whole Body to be One. Nice job Onenow1:thumbsup:

 

[una_fides]

**There are certain precepts taught in Scripture…which [are] easily demonstrated in Scripture. ** Therefore; if you read something that appears to contradict what you know is true, … then you must look at the apparent contradiction more closely because you know there is truth there; therefore you know you don’t have it correct; therefore you must begin to put the whole of Scripture and begin to look at other passages with the same truth or apparent contradiction to reach the correct contextual truth that appeared to be a contradiction. What is nice is that once you figure it out; you now have another truth revealed to you and a deeper understanding and appreciation for Him and His word.
The more diligent one is at this, the more truth will be revealed.

Tanner,
The reason that certain teachings seem to be “easily demonstrated” in Scripture is because you already believe them or find them convincing in the first place. For this reason, when you see Scriptures that support such teachings, then they seem to be obviously true, when in reality your pre-existing beliefs could have been wrong and then you’re left with conclusions that actually draw a different meaning from the Scriptures than was originally intended. The approach you laid out is pretty-much the same for every one of the tens of thousands of protestant denominations that interpret Scripture differently. They read their understanding into Scripture. No one is just handed a Bible and is told to figure it out, and if that were to happen no doubt you get even more differences in opinions and conclusions. The reason is that you have to have the correct starting point. Where did the teaching / interpretation originate in history? To where can you trace it? If you can’t find anyone of the successors to the apostles or anyone in that early Church period interpreting such things or spreading such teachings, then you have a very serious problem on your hands. You should give the most weight not to what you presume certain Scriptures mean but to how the early Church universally understood them. The early Church carried on the teachings of the apostles and many of them were martyred for their faith. Read St. Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martry and disciple of St. John the Apostle, and tell me if he believes in a figurative presence of Christ in the Eucharist or tell me he did not understand that the successors to Peter had the primacy and that bishops were to rule the Church and that everyone was obligated to be obedient to the bishops because they were the legitimate successors to the apostles. It’s all right there in history. That must be our starting point if we are to arrive at correct conclusions on what the Scriptures meant. How did the Church that compiled them understand them, and what did they teach?

 

[soflochristmas]

Tanner:

Nice to see you join us again. I love your quote but you forgot to start with verse 24:

24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? [R] +]
25 But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience.
Romans 8:24-25

The verse does not say “For we are saved by assurance” after all why hope when you already know for sure?

oooops. Don’t you hate it when they leave out those important contextual sentences.

 

[paul_c]

**Darn; no credit for making an attempt and research on your side of the coin? Actually; Jesus stated He was God. A group of people determined this is true based on what was already written. It was always in the Word of God; but it took some people to show it and make the point; likewise sola scriptura has always been there; it just took some people to make the point from what was already written. There are no new doctrines invented when one sticks to the special revelation; new doctrines are invented by men when things are added or subtracted from the revelation god gave to us.

I’ve got to run and I am way behind in answering posts! blessing and will talk at you soon; Lord willing. **

Of course Arianism was wrong and Jesus was the son of God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. But that was not the position that Constantine and his two immediate successors as Emperor of Rome wanted to win out. (As we described in the last thread, in which you claimed that Constantine created Catholicism). What won the day was the Church, inspired not by Scripture but by the Holy Spirit through the Apostolic succession. The new doctrine in this case, was Arianism, which was against what the Apostles taught. There are many other new, made by man doctrines as well which you subscribe to. Like Sola Sciptura, sola fide and OSAS, You will find no support for these doctrines prior to the Protestant Reformation. If you want to see continuity of Doctrine, demonstrating that they are original and valid, you must follow the doctrines through the Early Church Fathers back to the Apostles. You will not be able to do that with doctrines not supported by the Catholic Church.

 

[Tanner9188]

Who determines who is in the remnant? Are you in the remnant? How do you know?

cya!

• Michael

**1) God the Father: "“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.”

“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.”

1. Definitely
2. "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, "

"I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,

“And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,”

Furthermore; there is a great change in my thoughts, actions and deeds; a total life transformation. I will say that people that have to ask; how do you know are either testing to see or they themselves have never experienced the life transformation that occurs when the Holy Spirit indwells; therefore they cannot understand; for how could you understand something you do not have or experienced and outright know?

I would like you to answer these; 1) Are you saved? 2) How do you know or don’t know? Do you worry about your salvation or lack of salvation?**

 

[Tanner9188]

Of course Arianism was wrong and Jesus was the son of God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. But that was not the position that Constantine and his two immediate successors as Emperor of Rome wanted to win out. (As we described in the last thread, in which you claimed that Constantine created Catholicism). What won the day was the Church, inspired not by Scripture but by the Holy Spirit through the Apostolic succession. The new doctrine in this case, was Arianism, which was against what the Apostles taught. There are many other new, made by man doctrines as well which you subscribe to. Like Sola Sciptura, sola fide and OSAS, You will find no support for these doctrines prior to the Protestant Reformation. If you want to see continuity of Doctrine, demonstrating that they are original and valid, you must follow the doctrines through the Early Church Fathers back to the Apostles. You will not be able to do that with doctrines not supported by the Catholic Church.

**As we described in the last thread, in which you claimed that Constantine created Catholicism; I think you may have me mixed up with another poster or my memory is failing, which is also possible.

I think anyone who did an honest search of the NT using key words, predetermined, beforehand, elect, called, predestined could not come away and say that anyone could lose their salvation. Likewise a search in the OT using key words like adding, subtracting or omitting; then the NT you should come away with the fact that God wants nothing added or subtracted from the Bible.

The earliest church fathers are the writers; so you really should take your own advice; this would lead you to sola scriptura, which is not an invention as you suppose and were taught and has always been in Scripture; just took a long time for someone to put it into light of Scripture, the wrk of the Holy Spirit.**

 

[Tanner9188]

oooops. Don’t you hate it when they leave out those important contextual sentences.

What is the Biblical definition of hope? Who is our hope? There is no contextual error on my part, but on yours.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner,
The reason that certain teachings seem to be “easily demonstrated” in Scripture is because you already believe them or find them convincing in the first place. For this reason, when you see Scriptures that support such teachings, then they seem to be obviously true, when in reality your pre-existing beliefs could have been wrong and then you’re left with conclusions that actually draw a different meaning from the Scriptures than was originally intended. The approach you laid out is pretty-much the same for every one of the tens of thousands of protestant denominations that interpret Scripture differently. They read their understanding into Scripture. No one is just handed a Bible and is told to figure it out, and if that were to happen no doubt you get even more differences in opinions and conclusions. The reason is that you have to have the correct starting point. Where did the teaching / interpretation originate in history? To where can you trace it? If you can’t find anyone of the successors to the apostles or anyone in that early Church period interpreting such things or spreading such teachings, then you have a very serious problem on your hands. You should give the most weight not to what you presume certain Scriptures mean but to how the early Church universally understood them. The early Church carried on the teachings of the apostles and many of them were martyred for their faith. Read St. Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martry and disciple of St. John the Apostle, and tell me if he believes in a figurative presence of Christ in the Eucharist or tell me he did not understand that the successors to Peter had the primacy and that bishops were to rule the Church and that everyone was obligated to be obedient to the bishops because they were the legitimate successors to the apostles. It’s all right there in history. That must be our starting point if we are to arrive at correct conclusions on what the Scriptures meant. How did the Church that compiled them understand them, and what did they teach?

You sound like a parrot; the earliest church father are the men who wrote the Scriptures and are not Catholic as you suppose; but you cannot hear the truth not handle the church.