John MacArthur's ironic comment of the day

[josie_L]

Not one time. Faith is never considered a work man does when in relationship to salvation.
Show me one verse that says man must do somthing to be saved. Have you read Titus 3:5?

1 John 2:3-6

"We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him. Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Obeying his commands is what we Catholics refer to as “works”, that is, acts of love. As such if one claims to live in Jesus, then he MUST walk as Jesus did. What did Jesus do by the way that we must do, do you think it had anything to do with “love your neighbor as thyself” ? According to the Saint Paul in Galatians, this commandment encompasses the whole law (mosaic law which is now Christ’s law), in other words, if we as Christians love our brothers we are made complete.

 

[ppasa316]

Where is that in the Bible? Chapter and verse, please.

So then, what do you do when John MacArthur, your pastor, and commentaries have different interpretations?

If the Bible was really as easy to understand as you say it is, there wouldn’t be 30,000 protestant denominations, each with conflicting and contradictory doctrines, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit in their understanding of the Scriptures. Whose Holy Spirit do you listen to then?

II Tim 3:16. Ever heard of the Bereans in the book of Acts. The great Apostle Paul had taught the Bereans but they seached the scriptures as well. It is wise to look at Gods Word after someone’s teaching. To make sure that everything is in line. I like the fact that our Pastor and Warrren Weirsbe gives us plenty of scripture to back up what they are teaching. The bible is easy to understand but you have to read and study it. You should know about different teachings. Your churches do that all the time. Why do you think i left the Catholic Church.

 

[josie_L]

II Tim 3:16. Ever heard of the Bereans in the book of Acts. The great Apostle Paul had taught the Bereans but they seached the scriptures as well. It is wise to look at Gods Word after someone’s teaching. To make sure that everything is in line. I like the fact that our Pastor and Warrren Weirsbe gives us plenty of scripture to back up what they are teaching. The bible is easy to understand but you have to read and study it. You should know about different teachings. Your churches do that all the time. Why do you think i left the Catholic Church.

So you’re a follower of Dave Hunt’s propaganda, great!!!

 

[Howie01]

Tomster:

First of all, if the Bible is pretty easy to understand, contrary to what St. Peter said in the Bible by the way…

Where does Peter say the "bible is hard to understand…" ???

Tomster:

Secondly, by your own admission, by reading commentaries you are depending on something that is extra-biblical; translated, not in the Bible. So much for Sola Scriptura.

That’s your definition of Sola Scriptura; it’s not the definition of those who adhere to SS. SS does not exclude the use of outside sources to interpret scripture.

Tomster:

Can you see the contradictions in your position?

It’s your position/definition of SS in which you see contradictions. You’ve erected a straw man.

 

[Tomster]

II Tim 3:16. Ever heard of the Bereans in the book of Acts. The great Apostle Paul had taught the Bereans but they seached the scriptures as well. It is wise to look at Gods Word after someone’s teaching. To make sure that everything is in line. I like the fact that our Pastor and Warrren Weirsbe gives us plenty of scripture to back up what they are teaching. The bible is easy to understand but you have to read and study it. You should know about different teachings. Your churches do that all the time. Why do you think i left the Catholic Church.

Sorry friend. The Scriptures St. Paul was referring to were the the Old Testament, the New Testament was not completed at this point. So, if you are going use to this verse to justify your position, you can only refer to the Old Testament. If you do this, you have essentially locked yourself into the Old Law.

 

[Tomster]

Where does Peter say the "bible is hard to understand…" ???

That’s your definition of Sola Scriptura; it’s not the definition of those who adhere to SS. SS does not exclude the use of outside sources to interpret scripture.

It’s your position/definition of SS in which you see contradictions. You’ve erected a straw man.

Sola Scriptura mean Bible Alone. So I guess from your response Catholics should understand Sola Scripture as Sola Scriptura Plus. What nonsense.

 

[Tomster]

Where does Peter say the "bible is hard to understand…" ???

That’s your definition of Sola Scriptura; it’s not the definition of those who adhere to SS. SS does not exclude the use of outside sources to interpret scripture.

It’s your position/definition of SS in which you see contradictions. You’ve erected a straw man.

“Where does Peter say the Bible is hard to understand?” Why, haven’t you searched the Scriptures?

 

[RonaldH]

NOt at all! The disagreements are why we are here!

The teaching of Jesus is 100% authoritative.

No. Everyone should be free to reject the teaching of Jesus.

Everyone is free to do so, it’s each one’s God given free will. If what you are trying to imply is that I am rejecting His teaching because I disagree with you I leave to Him to judge me.

YOur figures are a bit off, and it was not “the Church” who killed them but ruthless men who claimed to be Catholic.

I will study this out further, I wonder where you get your sources?

I agree, they used heresy as a justification for heinous acts.

Agreed

Perhaps better than you are a grammarian.

LOL, my grammar’s terrible, I hope you can overlook it.
RonaldH;5188128:

The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D.,

It means that the Baptists have an erroneous self perception.

If this is true, then it makes sense that you have fallen away from the faith.

No, Ronald. Sola Scriptura is an extrabiblical heretical doctrine. It is not “the only measuring stick”. I respect your opinion (even though it appears to be based upon misinformation) that the Roman Church is not the “measuring stick”. You may come to find, if you stay here, that you have been given a great deal of wrong information.

Thanks, for your welcoming me here to voice a disagreement. I have been here before when I have not felt very welcome. Jesus’ teaching is 100% authoritative and I would say that in Him be equated to “the Word” John’s Gospel chapter 1, we can use that for His entire Word. If we’d hold that that foundation we’d have a common ground for dialogue

You make statements that the Baptists have an erroneous perception. I’m sure we all have error in many things. I conceed my humanity and also am convinced your perception of Catholic history is tainted as well. Isn’t this commonly called seeing through rose colored glasses?

Concerning falling away from the faith, yes, the Catholic faith. As the old Hymn says, “My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” My faith may not be impressive but I know where it is and who is the object of my salvation.

Again, your opinion. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20 I understand traditions and other writings as well as “ex-cathedra”. I simply compare what is stated in those matters with what the Bible says. The place where I draw the line is when a church declares them in an of themselves to be equal to His Holy Word concerning objective truth. I reject that. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” II Tim. 3:16 and “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” II Peter 1:20 God says what He means and means what He says. It has not been a problem reading His Word personally and allowing His Holy Spirit to speak to my heart. I am thankful for some of my Catholic upbringing and do not want to come across in any way hateful to Catholic people. Forgive me if I have. As far as staying here, could it be we may both learn?

 

[MrS]

RonaldH:

I have a question for you since I think I understand that you are saying … one can read Scripture on their own, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, come to a correct understanding,

And the clearer the verse(s) is, the more likely we will agree on what the verse might mean.

so…

How do you understand this verse which I think is both clear in its instruction, and not as clear in the results which come from the instruction:

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.”

(yes, you can use St Paul for help if you wish… but not an outside source)

.

 

[RonaldH]

There is no such thing as a “Roman Church” - it is the Catholic Church, of which the Roman/Latin Rite is only 1/23. The Church did not kill anyone, people killed people. Although, a friend of mine (who is not Catholic) points out that Europe would be predominately Muslim, had the Christians not fought back and refused to convert to Islam. It was a bloody time in history no matter where or whom you worshiped. There is no “Roman Church” and to continue to refer to the Catholic Church as “Roman” is not very polite. There are 22 other Rites that are just as Catholic, and many of them have representatives here on CAF. It was through studying history that I left the Baptist faith community and became Catholic. This shows how little you know of history. Sounds like you’re getting your information about Constantine from the Trail of Blood. I just read a book on Constantine that tells a very different story from what you’re posting here.
No, what Constantine did was make it LEGAL to practice Christianity publicly. He did what the founders of the United States did in not establishing a state religion. Did you know that Pontifex Maximus means “Bridge Builder”? At any rate, it is NOT one of the Pope’s actual titles.
Actually, many bishops throughout the Church used that title as well, not just the Pope. If a Baptist studied actual history and not the fabrication that is the Trail of Blood and/or Landmarkism, they would know differently. I did that very thing, and I found that the “links” to the Apostles in the Trail of Blood are, upon scrutiny, nothing like Baptists and if a Paulician, Waldensian or Montanist church opened up down the street, no Baptist would darken the threshold and would likely warn all their friends and fellow congregants not to even visit there. If you were really raised Catholic as you say you were, you would know not to call it the “Roman church.” If you study the Bible you’ll see that it was never meant to be interpreted apart from the Apostolic Teachings. Sola Scriptura is not only unscriptural, it’s anti-Scriptural.

I am not here to please you. I am here to share a dissending opinion. “Catholic” means, “universal” and I do not accept the authority of the Roman Church upon me or my eternal soul. I do not say this to offend you but do not ask me to act contrary to my conscience. I am sure you would not. I play golf weekly with a catholic priest, I never call him “Father”, it is against my conscience, does that offend you? It is not meant to, but the point is we must act accordingly. I do not believe in a New Testement priesthood other than the “priesthood of believers”, I Peter 2:9. Concerning Sola Scriptura, it is my personal conviction that to a race of fallen creatures God in his goodness was loving enough to give us His Holy Word. II Tim. 3:15-17, “and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” It is the only book, writing and belief system humanity has that is 100% Objective. It was how I found peace 30 years ago and find it completely adequate to meet the needs of man. I do see serious dangers to adding to His Word and John the Revelator tells us so in Revelations 22. The biggest error the cults of the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormon’s make is to add to His Word.

 

[Shannon9791]

I am not here to please you. I am here to share a dissending opinion. “Catholic” means, “universal” and I do not accept the authority of the Roman Church upon me or my eternal soul. I do not say this to offend you but do not ask me to act contrary to my conscience. I am sure you would not. I play golf weekly with a catholic priest, I never call him “Father”, it is against my conscience, does that offend you? It is not meant to, but the point is we must act accordingly. I do not believe in a New Testement priesthood other than the “priesthood of believers”, I Peter 2:9. Concerning Sola Scriptura, it is my personal conviction that to a race of fallen creatures God in his goodness was loving enough to give us His Holy Word. II Tim. 3:15-17, “and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” It is the only book, writing and belief system humanity has that is 100% Objective. It was how I found peace 30 years ago and find it completely adequate to meet the needs of man. I do see serious dangers to adding to His Word and John the Revelator tells us so in Revelations 22. The biggest error the cults of the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormon’s make is to add to His Word.

The quote you gives says scripture (referring to the OT, b/c the NT was not yet compiled and the writer had no idea that what he was saying would be held in canon) is profitable not sufficient. What are you thoughts on taking things away from scripture, like Luther did? I also have a very close friend who is a priest, and I don’t call him Father. I would hope that you would call him that, as it is his title, if you were referring to him in a more formal setting. A little off topic, but what’s your handicap?

 

[guanophore]

II Tim 3:16. Ever heard of the Bereans in the book of Acts. The great Apostle Paul had taught the Bereans but they seached the scriptures as well. It is wise to look at Gods Word after someone’s teaching. To make sure that everything is in line. I like the fact that our Pastor and Warrren Weirsbe gives us plenty of scripture to back up what they are teaching. The bible is easy to understand but you have to read and study it. You should know about different teachings. Your churches do that all the time.

Whose Churches do what all the time?

Why do you think i left the Catholic Church.

Ignorance, most likely. That is the cause most of us did.

One thing that is different between you and the Bereans is that the Bereans accepted the Apostolic message with eagerness. You have walked away from those to whom the message of the gospel was committed, following itching ears. What made the Bereans noble was their receptiveness to the ones that God sent. I know how it is. I did it myself.

 

[RonaldH]

RonaldH:

I have a question for you since I think I understand that you are saying … one can read Scripture on their own, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, come to a correct understanding,

And the clearer the verse(s) is, the more likely we will agree on what the verse might mean.

so…

How do you understand this verse which I think is both clear in its instruction, and not as clear in the results which come from the instruction:

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.”

(yes, you can use St Paul for help if you wish… but not an outside source)

.

Thank you for your kind words, and if you don’t mind, I will quote the verse first from John 6:50-52, “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” To which our Savior replied, v.53-54, “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” You ask me how I understand this verse, but then caution me not to use an outside source. I wonder what you mean by that but I will tell you how I see the passage. We must look at the entire passage and make sure to put it in context to understand. Jesus had just performed the miracle of feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a couple fishes (v. 1-14). The Savior walks on the water v.15-24 as the disciples were in the boat and then immediately they were on the other side of the Sea of Galilee and of all things, the crowds found Him again! Notice Jesus’ rebuke of them! v. 26, “you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill”, the very next verse is critical to truly understanding what He meant in your question verse. v.27, “Do not work for food that spoils” Do you find it beyond our Savior to use metaphors? His life was depicted that way, He told parables, shared truth in the very manner as to require people to sincerely seek Him and God. The disciples even asked HIM of this, Matthew 13:10, "The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” Jesus did answer that query by his disciples, listen, v.12-14, "Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.” There is nothing more valuable than an eternal soul. My soul, yours cost God the Father His very and only Son’s life. Is it surprising that to gain such a glorious gift that Jesus made it so that one would have to search for it as gold or a treasure? (Read Matthew 13:44-46 about the treasure and pearl of great price).

Back to your passage of question in John 6: After Jesus rebuking them for bad motives in seeking Him (because they got filled with food!). They brought up Moses and God’s miraculous provisions through the wilderness wandering wherein God provided manna on the ground every day and asked Jesus for a miraculous sign! v.30. AMAZING, just after he’d fed them miraculously they still were missing it! "So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give?” Jesus used the metaphor! It was a perfect metaphor, they had just ate bread given by Him in a miracle, then the people bring up the manna (the bread from heaven). So Jesus talks of REAL life, real spiritual life and it had nothing to do with physical eating or bread. It was about HIM! v.29 is the key, "Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Believing in Him, trusting in Him (alone). That is how one appropriates eternal life into their very soul! v.55, “Your forefathers ate manna and died”, Jesus was teaching them, it is not about the gullet, it was not about bread, it was about their soul it was about the spirit. It was a hard saying, they did not understand and misunderstood in their offense of literally eating His flesh and literally drinking His blood! (BTW, that is exactly what Catholic doctrine declares occurs during transubstantiation!!). IT IS NOT what Jesus meant, and He even personally clarified it to His disciples in that very chapter! Note: v. 63, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Do you not see? THE FLESH COUNTS NOTHING! They were spiritual words, and those words apply to you and I! He alone died for your sins, it is yours and my responsiblity (and priveledge) to believe in Him, to trust in Him and to rely on Him alone to be saved. The difference in Catholic doctrine is that Catholic doctrine says the words were literal but that is not the case, they were spiritual.

 

[guanophore]

You make statements that the Baptists have an erroneous perception. I’m sure we all have error in many things. I conceed my humanity and also am convinced your perception of Catholic history is tainted as well. Isn’t this commonly called seeing through rose colored glasses?

I was sucked out of Catholicism by baptists, and was steeped in Baptist traditions for some time. It is difficult to study history without bias. however, I started to study history at a Protestant Seminary. Eventually, I studied my way home. No, I do not think I had rose colored glasses, but I will say I did try on a lot of different pairs. History looks very different, depending upon which pair one wears.

Concerning falling away from the faith, yes, the Catholic faith. As the old Hymn says, “My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” My faith may not be impressive but I know where it is and who is the object of my salvation.

You seem to think that the Catholic faith is built on something else.
Love that hymn, by the way.

again, your opinion. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20 I understand traditions and other writings as well as “ex-cathedra”. I simply compare what is stated in those matters with what the Bible says. The place where I draw the line is when a church declares them in an of themselves to be equal to His Holy Word concerning objective truth. I reject that.

This seems odd to me, since it was Jesus who declared that His word was in the Apostles, and commissioned them to pass it on to others. You make it seem like He lied, or was weak,a nd unable to preserve His word in the people as well as He can on paper.

The Catholic Church wrote, protected, canonized, and promulgated the Scriptures. Of course they would have to be “equal” to such a task.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” II Tim. 3:16

This was written by a CAtholic, for Catholics. However you notice that the teaching of doctrine, reproving the disciples, correcting and instructing (teaching) are all duties given by God TO THE CHURCH. The scripture is to be used to profit these gifts to the Church, not to replace them.

and “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” II Peter 1:20 God says what He means and means what He says. It has not been a problem reading His Word personally and allowing His Holy Spirit to speak to my heart. I am thankful for some of my Catholic upbringing and do not want to come across in any way hateful to Catholic people. Forgive me if I have. As far as staying here, could it be we may both learn?

I have not found your comments hateful. Just wondering if you, like me, had a poor catechesis.

 

[RonaldH]

The quote you gives says scripture (referring to the OT, b/c the NT was not yet compiled and the writer had no idea that what he was saying would be held in canon) is profitable not sufficient. What are you thoughts on taking things away from scripture, like Luther did? I also have a very close friend who is a priest, and I don’t call him Father. I would hope that you would call him that, as it is his title, if you were referring to him in a more formal setting. A little off topic, but what’s your handicap?

lol, my handicap is my putting! Actually it is at 0.4, and I do appreciate your statement concerning your friend. I understand it is a title, but doesn’t it have a little more meaning than that? Papa, as in daddy? Like a spiritual father? Kind of along the lines how the catholics refer to the Pope as the Holy Father (See)? The reason I don’t is a simple statement that I don’t find too many ways around, Matthew 23:9, “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” Jesus was speaking of a spiritual Father and it’s what I assume is how the Catholics view their priests.

 

[guanophore]

I am not here to please you. I am here to share a dissending opinion. “Catholic” means, “universal” and I do not accept the authority of the Roman Church upon me or my eternal soul.

With all due respect, Ronald, it is not the “Roman Church”. Such expressions belie a prejudice. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, and Latin members of her are CAtholic.

Not only that, your refusal to accept the authority appointed by God to shepherd you does not negate that authority. It makes you a rebellious subject of the successor of Peter.

I do not say this to offend you but do not ask me to act contrary to my conscience.  I am sure you would not.  I play golf weekly with a catholic priest, I never call him "Father", it is against my conscience, does that offend you?

No, not a bit. I am sure that God is able to work through your conscience.

It is not meant to, but the point is we must act accordingly. I do not believe in a New Testement priesthood other than the “priesthood of believers”, I Peter 2:9.

Perhaps you will be willing to learn something about it while you are here? For example, do you know where the word “priest” came from?

Concerning Sola Scriptura, it is my personal conviction that to a race of fallen creatures God in his goodness was loving enough to give us His Holy Word. II Tim. 3:15-17, “and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work”

This scripture does not equate to Sola Scriptura. However, I agree that the Lord, in His goodness, gave us the Scriptures. That same Lord, in His goodness, gave us a Church. The two are not meant to be separated.

It is not the scripture that makes the man complete, but the training in which it is used. All these duties are given to the Church.

It is the only book, writing and belief system humanity has that is 100% Objective.

Well, this is frankly hogwash. The bible is not a “belief system”. Clearly, if it were, sincere persons reading it would not keep coming up with alternative and often contradictory belief systems!

What Jesus committed to the Church is a belief system.

Scripture is not “objective” either. It is biased towards God’s point of view. Further, there is no such thing as a biased person, so everyone who reads it inserts their own bias.

It was how I found peace 30 years ago and find it completely adequate to meet the needs of man. I do see serious dangers to adding to His Word and John the Revelator tells us so in Revelations 22. The biggest error the cults of the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormon’s make is to add to His Word.

I am glad to know you are at peace. One has to wonder why you are here, if this is the case.

 

[Howie01]

Tomster:

Sorry friend. The Scriptures St. Paul was referring to were the the Old Testament, the New Testament was not completed at this point.

Correct; what Paul is saying is, the OT scriptures are able to give one the wisdom needed to be led to salvation through faith in Christ.

“Where does Peter say the Bible is hard to understand?” Why, haven’t you searched the Scriptures?

You’re not answering my question: where does Peter say the ”bible is hard to understand?”

Tomster:

Sola Scriptura mean Bible Alone. So I guess from your response Catholics should understand Sola Scripture as Sola Scriptura Plus. What nonsense.

Yes. You should understand the doctrine as its adherents define it, and that definition includes the role of the church, and god-sent teachers, and their writings and teachings; Mkay?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Would you mind using paragraph breaks - not to please me personally, but to make your posts easier to read. Please?

I am not here to please you. I am here to share a dissending opinion. “Catholic” means, “universal” and I do not accept the authority of the Roman Church upon me or my eternal soul.

I don’t accept the authority of the “Roman Church” either, since there’s NO SUCH THING! Catholic indeed means universal and the word is used in reference to the Church in Acts, so it’s a very Biblical term for the Church founded by Christ and his Apostles.

I do not say this to offend you but do not ask me to act contrary to my conscience. I am sure you would not.

It’s not a matter of being offensive, or violating your conscience, it’s a matter of using correct terminology and not excluding other members of the Catholic Church who are not Latin Rite.

I play golf weekly with a catholic priest, I never call him “Father”, it is against my conscience, does that offend you? It is not meant to, but the point is we must act accordingly.

I guess the better question is, does it offend him? Has he asked you to call him “Father”?

I do not believe in a New Testement priesthood other than the “priesthood of believers”, I Peter 2:9.

Yes, we believe that too, but we also see in Scripture that Jesus gave His Apostles, not the words some of them would later be inspired to write, authority over the Church.

Concerning Sola Scriptura, it is my personal conviction that to a race of fallen creatures God in his goodness was loving enough to give us His Holy Word. II Tim. 3:15-17, “and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” It is the only book, writing and belief system humanity has that is 100% Objective. It was how I found peace 30 years ago and find it completely adequate to meet the needs of man. I do see serious dangers to adding to His Word and John the Revelator tells us so in Revelations 22. The biggest error the cults of the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormon’s make is to add to His Word.

What about the equally grievous error of taking away from God’s Word? I disagree that the Scriptures are objective, because if they truly were objective there wouldn’t be so many differing interpretations and denominations. We would be ONE Church as Jesus prayed for us to be. It’s been pointed out to you that the Scriptures Timothy knew from his childhood did not include any of the New Testament. In fact, when Timothy got that letter from Paul I’m pretty sure he had no idea that it would one day be part of the NT Scriptures. Timothy didn’t need the NT, he had the Apostles and learned the Faith directly from them, in a more comprehensive and thorough manner than is provided by the NT alone. It is this, known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition, that non-Catholics deny, though for whatever reason, they don’t have a problem accepting the Sacred Tradition of 27 NT books.

 

[Tomster]

The quote you gives says scripture (referring to the OT, b/c the NT was not yet compiled and the writer had no idea that what he was saying would be held in canon) is profitable not sufficient. What are you thoughts on taking things away from scripture, like Luther did? I also have a very close friend who is a priest, and I don’t call him Father. I would hope that you would call him that, as it is his title, if you were referring to him in a more formal setting. A little off topic, but what’s your handicap?

Profitable not sufficient. Thank you very much. Not nice to take St. Paul out of context.

 

[Shannon9791]

lol, my handicap is my putting! Actually it is at 0.4, and I do appreciate your statement concerning your friend. I understand it is a title, but doesn’t it have a little more meaning than that? Papa, as in daddy? Like a spiritual father? Kind of along the lines how the catholics refer to the Pope as the Holy Father (See)? The reason I don’t is a simple statement that I don’t find too many ways around, Matthew 23:9, “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” Jesus was speaking of a spiritual Father and it’s what I assume is how the Catholics view their priests.

No, Father equates with rabbi, or teacher. What do you call the man who helped give you life along with your mother? Isn’t he your father? I feel like one of the biggest stumbling blocks I’ve run into when discussing matters of faith and doctrine with non-Catholics is their transfer from literal to figurative language throughout the Bible. I don’t completely understand your question regarding the Pope. Are you referring to him as the Holy See? Off topic once more, but I’ve found the best thing about golf is that it’s really the only thing that people do really really bad and no matter how bad they do it, they always want to do it again. My response to the handicap question would be golf in general, but God bless the mad man who invented it.