- I assume you believe that the entire Bible is the inspired word of God. If so, do you believe that the table of contents is also inspired?
- If you answered that the table of contents is not inspired, to whom do you look for assurance that the Bible you have in hand is complete and inspired by God? Remember - a book cannot authenticate itself. SOMEONE or SOMETHING has to review the book and make a decision regarding its authenticity and completeness. I simply would like to know to whom do you look to for your assurance.
- Where in the entire NT (you don’t have to really look because it is not present, but feel free to search of you wish) did Christ tell ANYONE to write down what he did and taught while he was alive? Considering Christ did NOT tell anyone to write down what he did and taught, why should we look to something that Christ did not instruct people to do?
- If you do not believe that Christ entrusted the Holy Catholic Church as the final arbiter as to the canon of the OT and NT, don’t you think it odd that Christ would make no provision for his people to be SURE that what they were reading (that is, the OT and NT as the Catholic Church has passed it down from generation to generation) was in fact God’s divine word? And if you agree that such a thing would be odd, but you disagree with the contention that it was the Catholic Church to whom this duty was entrusted, to whom do you look for such assurance?
- Finally, if you are discussing a particular scripture verse with someone, and both of you come up with two entirely opposite views on the interpretation of that scripture, to whom do you turn to resolve that dispute? If no one, do you not realize that the failure to recognize the Catholic Church as the final arbiter of disputes over biblical verse, results in NO ONE being able to resolve that difference, and thus you and your friend are “left to the wind” to go through life without ever knowing what might be the true resolution to the dispute?
See above… and below.
(adapted from
The Lens in My Eye):
Martin Luther was confronted with the question of whether or not the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, an important official of his day, might enter into a bigamous marriage. When pressed to render a judgment in the matter, Luther (together with Philip Melancthon) concluded that monogamy was no necessary part of the Christian revelation and that polygamy was a legitimate practice for a Christian. In his words: I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter.
Your suggestion that I read Matt 19:1-10 only proves my point. For such an understanding of our Lord’s words depends entirely on the
way in which the Church habitually reads these words, not on the bare text alone. That is, it depends on a Tradition of Monogamy andnot merely on the text. For if we read the text strictly, we find it only speaks of
divorce and remarriage. It nowhere forbids men multiple wives if they retain previous ones.
In fact, we are given biblical figures such as Jacob, David and Solomon, all of whom are spoken of with great approval by God himself and none of whom are informed that male polygamy
per se is a sin.
There’s more, but you probably get the point.
You are downgrading Christ by calling Him a creature instead of God??
Did i misquote the meaning of handmaid or some such thing? Please indulge a friendly sarcasm (to offset your personal attack, which i take no insult from)
the lochness monster is the lochness monster, no matter your personal opinion.
proof founded on tradition.