Question for all protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter rinnie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If by Darwinistic evolution you mean: random evolution of creatures, then no, the Holy Father has not declared this theory to be a viable explanation.

If by evolution you mean: God’s hand is in the creation of the world, and we started out as one creature and evolved into another creature, then what is wrong with that? There is nothing in this theory which contradicts the Bible.
Erhmm… I’m sorry, but i really have to ask you one little question… Does the bible say that we started out as one creature, and evolved into another creature? If it doesn’t, then yes that contraticts the first chapter in the bible very clearly…

Kind Regards
-c-
 
Erhmm… I’m sorry, but i really have to ask you one little question… Does the bible say that we started out as one creature, and evolved into another creature? If it doesn’t, then yes that contraticts the first chapter in the bible very clearly…

Kind Regards
-c-
Does the Bible say how the earth was formed? How the waters divided?

Did God bring natural processes and laws of physics into creation or did he just wave a wand and poof it appeared ?

Scripture tells us God brought forth creation. It does not tell us how God brought forth creation other than by his words.

So yes God could say “Bang” and the Big Bang happened.

He could say let their be light and he accumulated elements into balls that produce light called stars.

He could separate the water from land by creating volcanoes and earthquakes

And he could create animals through millions of years of natural process culminating in his transformation of a special creature into man.

There is nothing contradictory with the scriptures here. It is merely contradictory with your man made faith tradition and your erroneous reading of the scripture.

How come there are no Jewish sects that set up “Creationism” museums?

How come they accept theistic evolution?

Genesis is their faith book after all
 
Erhmm… I’m sorry, but i really have to ask you one little question… Does the bible say that we started out as one creature, and evolved into another creature? If it doesn’t, then yes that contraticts the first chapter in the bible very clearly…

Kind Regards
-c-
The Bible gives no explanation as to “how” we evolved. Only the “what” and the “why” and the Who who did it.

To read Genesis as a scientific treatise on creation is to commit a grave error, cet.
 
I don’t want to get anyone in trouble here - but if I remember right - isn’t evolution a banned topic?

Peace
James
 
Erhmm… I’m sorry, but i really have to ask you one little question… Does the bible say that we started out as one creature, and evolved into another creature? If it doesn’t, then yes that contraticts the first chapter in the bible very clearly…

Kind Regards
-c-
The problem with making Genesis a scientific text is that the creation narrative in Chapter one is different than the narrative in Chapter 2. Certainly, one can choose to accept a literal view of one or the other. My own sense is that it is literal regarding the who, the why, and the for whom. Six days does not necessarily need to be thought of as six 24 hour periods, as God is not limited to that kind of thinking. As a matter of fact, one could speculate that God uses those terms precisely because we are limited to that kind of thinking. IOW, it is in terms we can grasp.

Out of curiosity, do you also take a literal view of the Lord’s Supper, when Christ says “This IS my body”, etc., and when Paul says, “Baptism now saves you”?

Jon
 
The problem with making Genesis a scientific text is that the creation narrative in Chapter one is different than the narrative in Chapter 2. Certainly, one can choose to accept a literal view of one or the other. My own sense is that it is literal regarding the who, the why, and the for whom. Six days does not necessarily need to be thought of as six 24 hour periods, as God is not limited to that kind of thinking. As a matter of fact, one could speculate that God uses those terms precisely because we are limited to that kind of thinking. IOW, it is in terms we can grasp.

Out of curiosity, do you also take a literal view of the Lord’s Supper, when Christ says “This IS my body”, etc., and when Paul says, “Baptism now saves you”?

Jon
Argument Smashed 😉

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
The problem with making Genesis a scientific text is that the creation narrative in Chapter one is different than the narrative in Chapter 2. Certainly, one can choose to accept a literal view of one or the other. My own sense is that it is literal regarding the who, the why, and the for whom. Six days does not necessarily need to be thought of as six 24 hour periods, as God is not limited to that kind of thinking. As a matter of fact, one could speculate that God uses those terms precisely because we are limited to that kind of thinking. IOW, it is in terms we can grasp.

Out of curiosity, do you also take a literal view of the Lord’s Supper, when Christ says “This IS my body”, etc., and when Paul says, “Baptism now saves you”?

Jon
This sounds so much better coming from an non-Catholic. 👍
 
He is a Catholic. 😃 Just not Roman Catholic.😉 I do agree with how you said it.
My respect for JonNC, notwithstanding…

There is no such thing as “Roman Catholics”, and then a subgroup of Catholics who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I agree with St. Augustine who states (paraphrasing) that everyone wants to claim the name “Catholic”, but when a stranger comes to your town and asks where is the local Catholic Church, we all know which church you would direct him to.
 
My respect for JonNC, notwithstanding…

There is no such thing as “Roman Catholics”, and then a subgroup of Catholics who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I agree with St. Augustine who states (paraphrasing) that everyone wants to claim the name “Catholic”, but when a stranger comes to your town and asks where is the local Catholic Church, we all know which church you would direct him to.
Now just so you know, PR, that it was Randy Carson who called me a Ninja Catholic ! 😃

Jon
 
CET, what is your bible verse that says scripture is the Word of God?
John 10:34-35
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;”

Jesus calls the word of God scripture, more spesifically the old testament in this case
And in that bible verse, what was scripture at the time of the writing? In the NT, St. Peter refers to only Paul’s writings as scripture. So you have to know what is scripture, in its entirety and how did the Church decide what was scripture.
As said… Jesus refers to a passage in the old testament as scripture, while saying it cannot be broken… Go figure… I mean maybe Jesus word doesn’t count as much as Peter’s?
No, not “us”. Christ was speaking to his apostles as this time, not to the crowds. “You” = the apostles = the first bishops. He was instructing his first Catholic Bishops, telling them that he would lead them to all truth on faith and morals.
Okay, then i guess you can nice and quietly refer to the scripture that names all desciples as bishops of the catholic church… Otherwise it is a assumption, and assumptions don’t get very far without solid evidence… Yes i agree they became big personalities in the first church, but is there ANY evidence at all that this was even called the catholic church? As far as i’ve studied the bible, i haven’t even found -one- scripture to support that assumption. Besides if you look at the time of pentecost, the Spirit of Truth were given to about a 120 of Jesus’ desciples… Were all those bishops in the catholic church? Even the women? (Acts 1:15-26 + 2:1)
12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Paul wasn’t even one of the 12, yet he has very much to say when it comes to things pertaining to the law, and also other theology…He was a great teacher, and he even reproved Peter at one point in Galatians 2:11-21

How then is it that a person that is not a “bishop” so freely can reprove and scold the “first pope”? I believe it is because the truth is given to laypersons as much as leaders of the church… It is up to every single person alone to decide what direction they want to follow. Their own interpretation, or the interpretation given by the Holy Spirit.
No it does matter. Christ himself set up this Church with seven sacraments, including the Eucharist to give us the grace needed for our salvation. Christ is clear that we need to listen to the Church. Again, the “you” that he is speaking to is his first Catholic bishops, the apostles. You are not hearing those who Christ himself sent.
16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Christ built the church on the cliff, which is Himself. Peter was named Chephas, which means pebble, And Christ is the one that is repeatedly called the cliff several times through scripture. And Jesus never set up anything called the eucharist. Of course you could try to find it in your bible… I believe you’ll have a hard time with that though, even in your catholic bible…
No easily. The Eithiopian eunuch needed help and St Peter said Paul’s writings were difficult … and there are 40,000 Christian denominations all believing differently on faith and morals using the same bible as you. So no, not really.
He says that they are difficult, yes… not impossible, and he also says who are prone to misinterpret them… “in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

The unlearned and unstable, hmm… In what? The scriptures? Interesting that this group of people also wrest the other scriptures as well… pretty serious that…
CET, take no offense at this personally, but it is a fact that Adventists allow abortions in their hospitals. This is opposite to the commandments and Christ’s words below. This is what happens when one reads the bible, removed from the Church from which it was written by, for and about. So are you saying that someone in the Adventist Church, read the scripture below, prayed about it and believed that the Holy Spirit guided the Adventist Church to have such a policy?
Well, i take no offence at all, i don’t agree with every adventist out there… And i don’t believe it is right for the adventist hospitals to allow such a thing… But that is besides the point… Truth is still truth, even if other people don’t follow it… And as christians we are obligated to follow Christ, not other humans. People believe that the Holy Spirit guides them to a lot of things, even contraticting things, which makes at least one of the partys wrong, maybe even both…

Kind Regards
-c-
 
John 10:34-35
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;”

Jesus calls the word of God scripture, more spesifically the old testament in this case
Yes, He does.

But He doesn’t say what belongs in the Bible.

You need the Catholic Church for this, cet.

You would not know that Hebrews, 3 Jude, Revelation, the Gospel of Mark are inspired…

and that the Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Gospel of Thomas are not…

except that you defer to the authority of the CC.
 
How then is it that a person that is not a “bishop” so freely can reprove and scold the “first pope”?
Did you know that even women (:eek:) can freely reprove and scold the popes?

To wit:
newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm
I believe it is because the truth is given to laypersons as much as leaders of the church… It is up to every single person alone to decide what direction they want to follow. Their own interpretation, or the interpretation given by the Holy Spirit.
Then you cannot disagree, one whit, with this Christian layperson, who declares that all of the epistles of Paul to be of satanic origin.

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

You must tell this guy that his own interpretation has just as much truth as your own interpretation.
 
My respect for JonNC, notwithstanding…

**There is no such thing as “Roman Catholics”, and then a subgroup of Catholics who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff. **

I agree with St. Augustine who states (paraphrasing) that everyone wants to claim the name “Catholic”, but when a stranger comes to your town and asks where is the local Catholic Church, we all know which church you would direct him to.
You may want to read “From Conflict to Communion” for a better understanding of the word “Catholic”
This task is so urgent since
Catholics and Lutherans have never ceased to confess together the faith
in the »one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church
lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf
 
And Jesus never set up anything called the eucharist.
Be careful, cet. This paradigm sets you up to have to throw out:

-the Bible: for Jesus never set up anything called The Bible.
-wedding ceremonies: for Jesus never set up anything called a Wedding Ceremony.
-Bible studies: for Jesus never set up anything called Bible Studies.
-Altar Calls: for Jesus never set up anything called Altar Calls.

Are you sure you want to declare “If Jesus didn’t set it up, then we don’t have to believe it”?

 
You may want to read “From Conflict to Communion” for a better understanding of the word “Catholic”
Again, I don’t accept that there’s Catholics, and then there’s “Catholics”, a subgroup of “Catholics” who have the freedom to oppose the chair of Peter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top