P
plain_me
Guest
If you don’t mind me asking, what exactly are you referring to? Did I miss something?
- Status
D
Des
Guest
Interesting how you throw in there that obviously Paul wouldn’t be excluding his own writings when the verse you gave, didn’t say that did it, nor did you even remotely imply it if you seriously were trying to teach us something. So really there was no point in even using it. And it wasn’t just the writings they wished them to hold fast to as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us. We also know that faith alone isn’t all that is required to obtain salvation (James 1:22-25, 2:14-19, Matthew 25:31-46, John 5:28-29, Luke 10:25-28, Romans 2:13, 2:5-11) just so you know.
Well when you see different protestants come in here day in and day out, rehashing the same verses and argument that’s been said in numerous threads, and thousands of times already over the years, it does get tiering. Everything you have said or are about to say has been refutted many times over. Do a search on Faith alone and see what you come up with. Then go in there and start reading. It will save you time from thinking you’re the one to finally once and for all bring down the Church.
And funny enough, you just seemingly reiterated the same thing again. Simply put, Paul really didn’t mean that the Old Testament writings themselves were explicit enough to gain Salvation and full knowledge of a Gospel that Jesus came to teach. If this is true then you’ll have to find me explicit teachings of the Trinity in the Old Testament. Do you honestly believe this? If not, then it really isn’t "quite the statement’ after all since it was never meant to be taken in the literal sense of which you first implied. But perhaps though, you’re just a ‘faith alone’ kind of guy where nothing more needs to be explictly mentioned as to be necessary in learning and gaining Salvation.
P
plain_me
Guest
Jason, I’m asking you not to pluck a verse here and a verse there and build a theology on those isolated verses (or rather support the pre-conceived theology by plucking “proof texts”). It’s very important not to take a verse out of context. Would you allow a Jehovah’s Witness to do that by quoting Jesus saying “the Father is greater than I”?
But you seem to be getting flabergasted, and my intention is to have a conversation about the teachings of Scripture. If we are going to do that we’ll need to examine the Scriptures, not pluck one piece of a sentence out of the whole and wave it around as if it proves something contradictory to the rest of its body.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
lol, may be feeling my frustration, lol
J
Jason_1977
Guest
Wow. I think you’re going to try the discrediting thing. I’m nowhere close to flabbergasted. I’m amazed that we cant look at the main points in scripture. The driving point in a paragraph. Nothing is taken out of context if you take it at face value. Now we’re talking semantics. (not a conversation I came to have.) You can ka-ka the texts I posted all you like, the meaning & message remain the same.
P
plain_me
Guest
It seems to me that the wise thing to do here is to go to bed because I’m getting more scoffing I’m getting (Pro. 9:7). It seems you all have all knowledge based on those who have come before me, and I have nothing to share. I would love to return again in the future, but I may not get over the perplexity I feel when I see you all rejecting my attempts to examine the surrounding context of your “proof texts” while swallowing whole the voluminous works that have been crammed into one little verse in Luke (1:28). :doh2:
J
Jason_1977
Guest
It’s not that you have nothing to share, you have plenty. It’s the fact that the main point of text & its simplicity somehow doesn’t cut it & isnt hitting home?` what is a proof text anyway? Is that another way of saying paraphrasing? yes, I used scripture in that sense to make a point. no marks for creativity to boot. such is my luck. Marion bashing isn’t very becoming either. That’s a different ball of wax & I’m WAY more than willing to discuss that if you maintain an open mind & do your best not to ka-ka everything that gets said. it’s ok to disagree. Dont leave me with the impression that I’m full of it because so far I havent done that yet despite my frustrations. Why stop at Luke 1:28…it gets good from 1:45-55. Or how about even Luke 1:41-44. Interesting. My point? ( I have a feeling you’d ask) is precisely, to ask, what is YOUR point in even mentioning that? Are we discussing Mary worship in mentioning that? You’d call honoring the vessel that bore the Messiah, doo-doo? My friend, I’m going to pray for you.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
one more small point. Catholicism isn’t centered around that Luke passage. It’s centered around the Trinity, Scripture, Teachings & the sacraments. YOUR PERCEPTION of catholicism is centered around this. MINE isn’t.
R
ronin67
Guest
Arguing with our Catholic friends about how scripture should be the guideline we all go by only, is like telling a principle of a school we have no need for him since we have a book of the schools rules and regulations. Catholics really still believe that strict church guidence is needed to fully understand and explain biblical passages. To a certain point I agree, HOWEVER, making rules that slightly deviate from the true meaning of a specific passage to interject man made control measures, isn’t right either. However, the Catholic church still insists it is the one true church and only way (most Catholics will deny this, however the truth is the truth).
Take Care and May God Bless!
Ed
Take Care and May God Bless!
Ed
G
Ginger2
Guest
The “Trinity” is a word used to describe the nature of the One God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
The Bible is a collection of inspired writings, it is not God. Church teachings are an expounding of those Holy Scriptures, they are not God. The sacraments are rituals design to edify (benefit) the believer, they are not God.
Scripture, Teachings & the sacraments are tools used by God, they are not God.
Protestanism is centered around Christ Jesus who is God.
Ginger
G
Ginger2
Guest
“Trinity” is a word used to describe the nature of the One God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
The Bible is a collection of inspired writings, it is not God. Church teachings are an expounding of those Holy Scriptures, they are not God. The sacraments are rituals design to edify (benefit) the believer, they are not God.
Scripture, Teachings & the sacraments are tools used by God, they are not God.
Protestanism is centered around Christ Jesus who is God.
Ginger
R
ronin67
Guest
Ginger you hit it right on the head. Jesus, the Christ was God in the flesh. If any message is to be accepted from the bible it is this and accepting Christ as there personal Lord and Savior (no one comes to the father except through me). People it is not hard. Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and you are saved by the grace of almighty God (Yahweh). Is there any one on this forum (Catholic or Protestant alike) who denies this most important truth of Christ??? Speak now or forever hold your piece. Enough with the minor differences. Can you still obtain salvation if you never conducted or participated in any sacrament (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion etc.)? At the last supper Christ Jesus said do this as often as you drink of the wine and eat the bread (new covanant of my blood/flesh of my body) in rememberance of him. He never once said do this or you will not have salvation. This was so we would never forget the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior. Can a person have salvation through Jesus Christ without ever participating in any of the sacraments (Yes or No)? Also Ginger, I would say; “The scriptures are God Inspired writings”. The words, paper and binding of the book that contains it, is not God.
Take Care and May God unite us all.
Ed
G
Ginger2
Guest
I came upon this quote provided by a Catholic purely by accident:
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, **by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. **Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. [DV 25; cf. Phil 3:8 and **St. Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam libri xviii prol.
L 24,17B]—Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed., © 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.So what we have here is strong evidence literacy rates were high in the 1st century up to the forth century and into the forth century, as well!!!
If the forth and fifth centuries were the height of illiteracy as was previously suggested, why did Jerome “forcefully” stress the importance of these illiterates to “frequently” read the Scriptures???
Ginger
P
plain_me
Guest
So what we have here is strong evidence literacy rates were high in the 1st century up to the forth century and into the forth century, as well!!!I came upon this quote provided by a Catholic purely by accident:
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, **by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. **Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. [DV 25; cf. Phil 3:8 and **St. Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam libri xviii prol.
If the forth and fifth centuries were the height of illiteracy as was previously suggested, why did Jerome “forcefully” stress the importance of these illiterates to “frequently” read the Scriptures???
Ginger
This is a common Roman Catholic repetetive statement that has been repeated enough times that people just believe it instead of allowing the historical data to speak for itself. Similar to the idea that the Jordan River didn’t have enough water in it for Jesus to be immersed even though the meaning of the word baptizo is to be “fully whelmed/submerged.”
The question should never be whether or not the chrch has authority or not, but it should be “does the church’s claim to authorty match up with the teaching of the Scriptures?” If the layperson has the ability to “search the Scriptures” as the laypeople in Berea did in Acts 17:11 then we can determine this (And we did. And it sparked a reformation.), but if the entity that claims to have the authority is also dictating what you should and should not believe about God’s word to His people then you can’t really check their authenticity. It’s the exact same situation that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormon find themselves in except that the Roman Catholic church contains more truth (Trinity, deity of Christ, etc) than those other conterfeits. We all know that Monopoly will never pass as well as some of the more close replicas of conterfeit dollars.
T
teak421
Guest
So what we have here is strong evidence literacy rates were high in the 1st century up to the forth century and into the forth century, as well!!!I came upon this quote provided by a Catholic purely by accident:
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, **by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. **Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. [DV 25; cf. Phil 3:8 and **St. Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam libri xviii prol.
If the forth and fifth centuries were the height of illiteracy as was previously suggested, why did Jerome “forcefully” stress the importance of these illiterates to “frequently” read the Scriptures???
Ginger
Ginger,
You do know that in Jerome’s tract, The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary he argues quite vigorously that Mary continued to be a virgin. Do you only pull writings that suite your ideology, or do you look at the entire writer to determine there total beliefs.
You can do a search on the web for Jerome so you can read his entire works…
- Michael
P
plain_me
Guest
Ya know, Jason, I think it’s a valid comparison for me to make when I say that the way in which you are trying to pluck one verse out of Scripture and make that the main force of the writer’s argument is similar to a liberal Democrat plucking a phrase out of the constitution and trying to apply it in a way that the founding fathers of America never inteded for it to be taken. This is why we conservative citizens of the USA would like to see some judges who will take the context of those historical documents into mind when attempting to make decisions in lawmaking. This is the only true way to find out what the original writers of any historical document meant.
I would like very much to continue a conversation with you, but I think that the whole passage ought to be posted with our remarks between the points that the writer is making. Sound fair?
I would like very much to continue a conversation with you, but I think that the whole passage ought to be posted with our remarks between the points that the writer is making. Sound fair?
T
teak421
Guest
For anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura:
Sola Scriptura requires that all doctrine, EVERYTHING concerning the Christine faith comes directly from the Bible. Someone, please explain where the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. What verses actually say that the Bible is the ONLY source of our Christain faith…
Sola Scriptura is Bible ONLY. If there is nothing in the Bible that directly says this, the doctrine falls flat and should be rejected.
Can anyone please put forward an argument for Sola Scriptura based on the Bible only…
Thanks in advance!
Sola Scriptura requires that all doctrine, EVERYTHING concerning the Christine faith comes directly from the Bible. Someone, please explain where the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. What verses actually say that the Bible is the ONLY source of our Christain faith…
Sola Scriptura is Bible ONLY. If there is nothing in the Bible that directly says this, the doctrine falls flat and should be rejected.
Can anyone please put forward an argument for Sola Scriptura based on the Bible only…
Thanks in advance!
- Michael
P
plain_me
Guest
Ginger was justified in her citation. Would you quote Augustine to back up your theology? Even though he believed in the layperson’s right and obligation to read and interpret Scripture for himself? Even though he believed and meticulously articulated predestation? Even though he specifically pointed out the fact that Jesus didn’t literally mean that you should eat His flesh and blood in John 6?
The fact raemains that the earliest writers in church history all the way up to late in the first milennium affirmed the ultimate authorit of Scripture and the believer’s obligation to know thos Scriptures. The question is whether they were consistant in their formal teachings and what would be the authority that they would appeal to when arguing their point. Just like today’s protestants (orthodox protestants, that is) will argue from the Bble and quote other theologians to support their claims. The theologians themselves are of no real authority, but they sometimes articulated things well enough to cite.
Does that clear anything up?
P
plain_me
Guest
Swing on over to this blog article which is a transcript of the James White/Patrick Madrid Sola Scriptura debate. (vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html) In James White’s opening statement, he gives a masterful exegesis of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 that completely demonstrates just what you’re looking for. You most likely have some negative preconceptions, so please try to read openly. Look for criticisms and read critically, but don’t brush the argument aside just because it’s from some protestant “anti-Catholic.”
T
teak421
Guest
If Scripture is the ultimate authority why then did:
- Protestants believe infant baptism is not supported by scripture, yet Augustine in his tract, Merits and Remission of Sin, and Infant speaks that it is necessary. He took a view that according to Protestants is NOT in Scripture. therefore, he is not BIBLE ONLY according to Protestants.
- As I believe I pointed on in a previous thread, Jerome wrote a tract on the continuation of the virginity of Mary. Protestants believe this is NOT in the Bible, therefore, Jerome did not use the Bible according to Protestants to come up with his view.
- If you agree that the ECF’s used the Bible as their primary authority, tell me, do you accept their view that Communion was the Real Presence of Jesus and not a symbol? Can you find any early Church Father that said it was a symbol? Without question, all of them wrote it was the Real Presence. If you’ve studied something and found something else written about that, please forward.
- Irenaeus of Lyons wrote quite early in Against Heresies that people used Scripture to pervert the Gospel (Mormons and JW’s come to mind for modern day)… And that the Church had the authority to say they are wrong.
- In 325 when the Creed was developed, the CHURCH not Scripture determined that Arias was wrong. In fact, Arias used Scripture to put forward his point… But, it was the Church the called the Arianians “aliens” to the Catholic Church. You can read directly about this in Alexander’s Epistles on the Arian Heresy… It even has the signatures of the people who signed it.
- Michael
- Status