If I am saved by faith alone, why do I need to read the Bible?

[ddarko]

“Fullness” … is your point of view

or … what is the purpose of the non Catholic Religions Forum?

If Im not convinced … by confusing lines of theological logic … I should not engage at all?

NO. what is a bit moronic here is that I see a lot of Protestants who are arguing about the LOGIC of Catholic Theology and THEIR OWN THEOLOGY while having an irrational foundation that they didn’t put 2 cents of thought in to.

How is that suppossed to make a Catholic feel?

If they had instead DONE their HOMEWORK in analyzing the foundations for their faith they would see that THEY HAVE NO OTHER OPTION than to be Catholic. But quiet irritatingly, they keep spitting out Biblical quote after quote

I think the source of the biggest FAITH CRISIS of the 21st century is the abandonment of reason. Thanks to that we have thriving Protestantism and Atheism.

God Bless

 

[1voice]

As for Pope Benedict’s claim, he is not infallible with respect to his personal opinion on protestantism.

… Nor are you… I stand with Benedict.

Protestantism is grossly irrational.

LOL!!

 

[ddarko]

… Nor are you… I stand with Benedict.

I wasn’t giving you a PERSONAL OPINION. I was saying that you were objectively being irrational in the same sense that if you say 1 + 1 = 3.

Try to PLEASE be a bit reasonable when you reply or is it too much to ask for?

LOL!!

Why don’t you stop laughing and actually produce a defense against what I said? All you’ve done is spit out Scripture quotes and personal experience defense to justify your faith in the Bible.

I asked you the following:-

“Is it not true that in the early church, though there were at least 500 converts from Pentecost, ONLY the Apostles decided on matters if teaching? Take the Circumcision example.”

To which all you’ve done is give me Scripture passages

That is fallacious reasoning on your part and THAT IS NOT A PERSONAL OPINION .

God Bless

 

[1voice]

I wasn’t giving you a PERSONAL OPINION. I was saying that you were objectively being irrational in the same sense that if you say 1 + 1 = 3.

Try to PLEASE be a bit reasonable when you reply or is it too much to ask for?

Why don’t you stop laughing and actually produce a defense against what I said? All you’ve done is spit out Scripture quotes and personal experience defense to justify your faith in the Bible.

I asked you the following:-

“Is it not true that in the early church, though there were at least 500 converts from Pentecost, ONLY the Apostles decided on matters if teaching? Take the Circumcision example.”

To which all you’ve done is give me Scripture passages

That is fallacious reasoning on your part and THAT IS NOT A PERSONAL OPINION .

God Bless

I clearly understand your logic … and where you are going with it. I was a Catholic… born and raised Irish/German heritage … for the first 25 yrs of my life.

I will not disagree with you concerning Apostolic succession and authority within the RCC … God bless you and keep you and make his face to shine upon you… and yours.
… at the same time … Pope Benedict is right.

 

[1voice]

Protestantism is grossly irrational.

Christianity is grossly irrational.

Paul said … If Jesus did not do what we claim … He (that is Paul) of all men is most to be pitied … that goes for all of us.

… all of our hopes and dreams are based on an experience.

 

[ddarko]

I clearly understand your logic … and where you are going with it. I was a Catholic… born and raised Irish/German heritage … for the first 25 yrs of my life.

I am afraid your time as a Catholic sheds NO RATIONAL LIGHT on anything.

I will not disagree with you concerning Apostolic succession and authority within the RCC … God bless you and keep you and make his face to shine upon you… and yours.

Good, so if you don’t disagree how does that NOT apply to you? If something is TRUE, then it must APPLY to you ALSO.

… at the same time … Pope Benedict is right.

??? What the heck are you talking about?

Let us even for the sake of argument assume that the statement was infallible. But as you should know, God brings about GOOD from EVIL. The Reformation was an EVIL. The fact that God brought some GOOD from it does not mean that the Reformation is now a GOOD.

Do you get what I am saying?

So in either case, even if you agree with Pope Benedict, you seem to be at a loss. So you should perhaps agree with EVERYTHING else he says too

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Christianity is grossly irrational.

Paul said … If Jesus did not do what we claim … He (that is Paul) of all men is most to be pitied … that goes for all of us.

… all of our hopes and dreams are based on an experience.

Sigh.

You my friend are now playing the word Experience.

Get this straightened out please. Personal Experience of Christ (i.e. lets say you saw him in your room and he said Hi) DOES NOT PROVE that the Bible is TRUE.

You have to accept the authority of the Apostles. Ironically you have agreed to this above. So why the heck are you being such an irrational person in believing in your own little personal interpretations?

Even more so, why on earth are you here on this forum debating theology if you have given up on reason? Are you trying to convince us to give up reason using reason ?

God Bless

 

[1voice]

I am afraid your time as a Catholic sheds NO RATIONAL LIGHT on anything.

Good, so if you don’t disagree how does that NOT apply to you? If something is TRUE, then it must APPLY to you ALSO.

??? What the heck are you talking about?

Let us even for the sake of argument assume that the statement was infallible. But as you should know, God brings about GOOD from EVIL. The Reformation was an EVIL. The fact that God brought some GOOD from it does not mean that the Reformation is now a GOOD.

Do you get what I am saying?

So in either case, even if you agree with Pope Benedict, you seem to be at a loss. So you should perhaps agree with EVERYTHING else he says too

God Bless

protestants are irrational… … remember?

 

[ddarko]

protestants are irrational… … remember?

Yea but at least my position makes logical sense.

You on the other hand are already stating that Christianity is IRRATIONAL and trying to tell us to abandon REASON using REASON itself. That I am afraid is yet again, illogical.

Whats keeping you from actually evaluating what I am saying? Is it your pride perhaps? Do you think its nice to just joke around when I am actually taking the time to show why what you are saying is irrational?

God Bless

 

[1voice]

Yea but at least my position makes logical sense.

You on the other hand are already stating that Christianity is IRRATIONAL and trying to tell us to abandon REASON using REASON itself. That I am afraid is yet again, illogical.

I was simply agreeing with scripture …

1 Corinthians 1:18
for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us – those being saved – it is the power of God,

 

[ddarko]

I was simply agreeing with scripture …

1 Corinthians 1:18
for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us – those being saved – it is the power of God,

Ok you really have to work with me here.

If logic is not your strong point, I am willing to still explain. Don’t think I am doing this out of some spite or something.

So now you present Scripture verses. The problem is that you first need to establish WHY you believe the Scripture is the word of God.

My point to you is that when you do this analysis, you see that the reason is because you accept the teaching authority of the Apostles.

After you figure that out, you cannot do personal interpretation anymore. You can see in Church history that it was the Apostles who ALWAYS decided on teaching matters with authority. It was never the faithful by themselves.

What happened in the reformation is that sadly, they forgot about this very important truth. When they broke away, they took the Bible but never bothered to ask how they went from Christ to the Bible. But there is no reason that you need to make this same mistake.

God Bless

 

[1voice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
I will not disagree with you concerning Apostolic succession and authority within the RCC … God bless you and keep you and make his face to shine upon you… and yours.

Good, so if you don’t disagree how does that NOT apply to you? If something is TRUE, then it must APPLY to you ALSO.

I said that it applies within the RCC.

“Roman Pontiffs” never exercised jurisdiction (“supreme power,” according to Vatican I, session 3, 1870) over the whole Church.

If the Church has survived and thrived without universal papal jurisdiction for so many centuries, what makes it necessary today?

 

[PRmerger]

So now you present Scripture verses. The problem is that you first need to establish WHY you believe the Scripture is the word of God.

My point to you is that when you do this analysis, you see that the reason is because you accept the teaching authority of the Apostles.

Exactly!

Reminds me of a quote I read by apologist Mark Shea:

The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

Quite trenchant, is it not?

[SIGN1]Protestants will deny the Catholic Church its infallibility, yet, inexplicably, accept our Holy Book, and assume that the Catholic Church made no errors.[/SIGN1]

What say you, 1voice? Do you not agree that it is irrational to take our Holy Book and declare it an infallible authority, yet reject all other things Catholic?

 

[ddarko]

I said that it applies within the RCC.

“Roman Pontiffs” never exercised jurisdiction (“supreme power,” according to Vatican I, session 3, 1870) over the whole Church.

If the Church has survived and thrived without universal papal jurisdiction for so many centuries, what makes it necessary today?

??? This is not a matter of Papal jurisdiction even.

All I am telling you to accept is the teachings of Bishops as a collection. Then Papal Infallibility and other dogmas follow without difficulty because you listen to the teaching of the Bishops.

Right now, the reason you make is that since Papal jurisdiction doesn’t seem to appear in history, I disagree. But that is not a valid plumb line. The plumb line is the teaching of Bishops i.e. Apostles.

The Apostles are teaching today but yet you are not listening. That was the point I was making. Papal doctrine happens to be just one teaching of the Bishops. Technically speaking, that is why you should be accepting papal doctrine as true. Not because of historicity.

But if you are interested, Papal doctrine can be seen in action as far back as the Book of Acts. Still, that should not be why you accept the doctrine.

God Bless

 

[1voice]

??? This is not a matter of Papal jurisdiction even.

???

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
I will not disagree with you concerning Apostolic succession and authority within the RCC … God bless you and keep you and make his face to shine upon you… and yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddarko
Good, so if you don’t disagree how does that NOT apply to you? If something is TRUE, then it must APPLY to you ALSO.

 

[ddarko]

???

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
I will not disagree with you concerning Apostolic succession and authority within the RCC … God bless you and keep you and make his face to shine upon you… and yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddarko
Good, so if you don’t disagree how does that NOT apply to you? If something is TRUE, then it must APPLY to you ALSO.

??

I am saying Apostolic Succession i.e. teaching authority of the Collection of Bishops applies to YOU also.

Not papal jurisdiction. Papal doctrine applies to you also because the Bishops i.e. Apostles taught it and therefore it must be true.

God Bless

 

[1voice]

??

I am saying Apostolic Succession i.e. teaching authority of the Collection of Bishops applies to YOU also.

Not papal jurisdiction. Papal doctrine applies to you also because the Bishops i.e. Apostles taught it and therefore it must be true.

God Bless

Irenaeus covered that …way back in the second century …

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith”

 

[PRmerger]

Irenaeus covered that …way back in the second century …

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith”

And this is a great argument for Tradition!

 

[ddarko]

Irenaeus covered that …way back in the second century …

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith”

Ok work with me here. You are missing a bit of logical analysis.

First, if you are saying Iranaeus is saying that he has no authority, then his claim it-self is undermined.

Second, Iranaeus is one individual speaking. You don’t listen to one Bishop. Go back to the Circumcision example. Apostles had different views. The matter was decided TOGETHER.

NOT individually.

So that was a good try, but shows that you are still not fully understanding what I am telling you. It’s not about the Pope, its not about one Bishop. IT IS ABOUT THE COLLECTION OF BISHOPS.

God Bless

 

[1voice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
Irenaeus covered that …way back in the second century …

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith”

And this is a great argument for Tradition!

LOL!!
Sounds like one holy Catholic to me!!