Questions about the Catholic Faith from a Protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter jpete79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jpete79:
Because of translation. The Greek word for rock that Christ uses is of a similar meaning but not the same meaning of the word rock when Christ is talking about the wise and foolish builder. This is because Peter may be a founder of the Church but Christ is still the head of the Church.
Click to expand...
I told myself I wouldn’t jump in to all the various topics herein, but I can’t help myself 😃

Okay, consider this: We know Jesus called Simon by this new word, whatever it means, k? We can agree on that much at least I presume. 🙂

Okay.

(this was just brought out in an insightful thread by another member here…so I can’t claim credit for this line of reasoning)

What was the word Jesus called Simon? Forget what it **means ** for now. Consider just what Jesus was doing. Was He calling simon by a new name, or was it a title? It seems it must have been one or the other.

If it was a title, then it indicates a new position for Simon. Catholics will argue that new position is as Christ’s prime minister so to speak.

If it was a name, then, if we consider the whole of the rest of the Bible, we must conclude God was calling Simon to do something significant, usually (in the OT) to be the leader of God’s people. If this is the case (that Jesus was calling Simon by a new name) then we MUST consider what the word means, as it would indicate the calling of Simon.

In either case, it is clear that something significant was occurring in that passage of Matthew 16.

So, I ask you now: Was it a name or a title? And based on your answer, what is the significance of that event?

Peace,
Chris W
 
Understanding the Catholic faith in the beginning is like looking at one of those posters from the '80’s where you just see thousands of dots. As you look at it correctly though, an basic shape emerges, and then an object…and then another…and then another, in more and more clarity, until you realize you are looking at a whole intricate picture in 3D…and you can’t help but smile that now you see what before was hidden. And then you can’t wait to encourage someone else to look at the poster.

that interpretation was very good. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen Worthy. nice
 
40.png
jpete79:
I hated those posters 😃
Click to expand...
Well there goes that analogy then 😃
40.png
jpete79:
I am wondering though, have you only looked at the Church’s standpoints when in dispute or have you looked at other literature as well? …but I would suggest reading all pieces of literature (not everything will be good literature though, I can tell you I’ve read a lot of crud myself but that’s the great thing about the Spirit).

Well have a good one and sorry if I offended you in any way during this discussion.
Click to expand...
You haven’t offended me in the least. It seems to me you have questions and concerns. I would much prefer to discuss with a person of conviction than a person with only a passing curiosity. The more your beliefs mean to you, the more joy you will have as you continue to refine and discover them.

In answer to your question though. Yes. I have read the many alternative positions to my own as well. I think it is very important to understand the perspective of another if we are to have effective dialogue…not just know the objection, but to understand why someone makes that objection.

Few are the people who make objections to merely be antagonistic, in my opinion. Usually there are very understandable reasons a person has arrived at the beliefs they hold.

I therefore expect you could argue very well for the beliefs you hold, Jim. I suspect you can take up most any subject and point to the Scriptures that support your belief.

I also suspect, Jim, that if you appraoch this with an open mind you will be amazed at how much more fully you could understand the Word of God.

Peace,
Chris W
 
40.png
mattrue:
that interpretation was very good. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen Worthy. nice
Click to expand...
He is my very favorite apologist. Wow, what a compliment :bounce:

Thx,
Chris W
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
You can’t really raise Scripture up above the other 2 authorities because the very authority of Scripture depends on them. The canon was determined by the bishops of the Catholic Church using Sacred Tradition. Finally, the pope had to “okay” it.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, so, whether you realize it or not, “you rely on someone else (the Catholic Church).” Even Martin Luther admitted this, so there is no use in laboring this point:

“We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all.”

If you would like more information on the history of the Bible, go here:

geocities.com/militantis/biblecontents.html

Christ left us with 12 men to run His authoritative Church, not a book.

Sincerely,
Jon
 
jpete79 said:
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html
Click to expand...

No offense, but their defense of Sola Scriptura is pretty weak. The Scriptures are the Word of God, but the Word was also spoken in oral Tradition. Also, in the Bible the New Testament references to “scripture” are referring to the Old Testament. The New Testament hadn’t been organized yet. The Old Testament was all they knew as Scripture. In fact, it was a pretty radical thing to add to the written Word of God with the addition of the New Testament. However, this is exactly what the Catholic Church did because Christ gave it the authority to do so. If you’re interested, this guy does a pretty good job of showing how Bible-alone isn’t what Christianity is based on:

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

He addresses basically every point that the Christian Answers article tries to make.

In Christ,
Jon
 
Consider this:

Jesus says we are to live by every word of God (Matt4, 4). Yet Jesus spent forty days after His Passion teaching the Apostles, and we have no record of what He said or did (Acts1, 3). Jesus spoke figuratively and in parables throughout much of the gospels, but we read in the gospel of John that after Jesus’ passion, he would speak plainly to the Apostles. Therefore, the 40 days He spent teaching the Apostles after His passion could perhaps be the clearest and most comprehensive teaching of all. How then could Jesus expect us to live by every word of God, if forty days worth of words were not recorded?

John confirms that not everything concerning Christ’s work was recorded in Scripture (John 21, 25). We also read that the early Christians “continued steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles” (Acts 2, 42), even though this was when the New Testament did not yet exist. What scriptures did exist at the time were rare copies kept by the leaders of the church because printing presses did not exist and the people could not read. Perhaps there is another way to learn what He taught which is outside of scripture…
 
Here are some more informative links on the Canon of the New Testament:

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

davidmacd.com/catholic/bible_catholics_apocrypha.htm (at the bottom of this one)

As far as the Bible claiming inspiration for itself, there are other books that do the same such as the Moslems’ Koran or the Mormons’ Book of Mormon. If we are to convince nonbelievers of the authenticity of Scripture, this isn’t a very convincing way to do it. Just a thought.

-Jon
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
No offense, but their defense of Sola Scriptura is pretty weak. The Scriptures are the Word of God, but the Word was also spoken in oral Tradition. Also, in the Bible the New Testament references to “scripture” are referring to the Old Testament. The New Testament hadn’t been organized yet. The Old Testament was all they knew as Scripture. In fact, it was a pretty radical thing to add to the written Word of God with the addition of the New Testament. However, this is exactly what the Catholic Church did because Christ gave it the authority to do so. If you’re interested, this guy does a pretty good job of showing how Bible-alone isn’t what Christianity is based on:

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

He addresses basically every point that the Christian Answers article tries to make.

In Christ,
Jon
Click to expand...
Jon:

I think we are both firm and passionate in our ideals.

You pointed me to an informative article in which you say tradition and Church Magisterium (not sure if that is correct) have just as much say as the Bible to rebut my argument about Sola Scriptura.

My issue with this is you leave yourself subject to what others are interpreting. You have 1900+ years of man’s teaching after the New Testament was written in its original language.
(For information about dating of the documents of the New Testament go here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament )

That’s 1900+ years of a Church with men as its leaders (men who are no different than you or I as they are sinners before the throne of God). That’s 1900+ years where mankind’s distorted opinions and traditions come into play.

I see you responded to the Sola Scriptura argument but what about that the early Church indeed believed in this idea. (I posted two articles to read). What about the idea that it was indeed your Church that before 1600 believed in Sola Scriptura and it was not until the Council of Trent this idea was changed? If you are saying they were wrong then; what’s to say other things they write aren’t wrong now? If you say they are right then, what’s to say that Sola Scriptura isn’t right now? If Scripture is indeed divinely inspired than what is to say that it was written to be in Canon…can an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, and all-loving God not think that far in advance?

I see that Scripture and what is written should be used as an authority (no matter how it came into being or was published) but nowhere do I see Peter or John or Paul say they are Church fathers who have say in changing what was written or spoken (they do the opposite and say look to it). Paul says that we are all under the headship of Christ and He is where we should be looking (In 1 Corinthians 3; when talking about Church divisions).

I have responded to most if not all of the verses about Timothy and various other passages and it is getting redundant. I have heard the same arguments from you (and you have heard the same rebuttals from me).

In light of the fact that I have to get going I will just say, have a blessed night and may God keep His arms around you.

God Bless.
 
Man, Jim, you really got me thinking about some things. I’m glad you did that. I just thought of the fact that some people claim that the Catholic Church is somehow opposed to Scripture. This is totally untrue. A perfect example of this is that (not that this should impress you 😛 ) the Church grants indulgences for the reverent reading of Scripture! Here, see for yourself:

“While a partial indulgence is granted to those who read from Sacred Scripture with the veneration which the divine word is due, a plenary indugence is granted to those who read for at least one half an hour.”

Also, from the Catechism (sorry) 😉 :

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.’ (St. Jerome)” #133
 
Chris W:
Consider this:

Jesus says we are to live by every word of God (Matt4, 4). Yet Jesus spent forty days after His Passion teaching the Apostles, and we have no record of what He said or did (Acts1, 3). Jesus spoke figuratively and in parables throughout much of the gospels, but we read in the gospel of John that after Jesus’ passion, he would speak plainly to the Apostles. Therefore, the 40 days He spent teaching the Apostles after His passion could perhaps be the clearest and most comprehensive teaching of all. How then could Jesus expect us to live by every word of God, if forty days worth of words were not recorded?

John confirms that not everything concerning Christ’s work was recorded in Scripture (John 21, 25). We also read that the early Christians “continued steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles” (Acts 2, 42), even though this was when the New Testament did not yet exist. What scriptures did exist at the time were rare copies kept by the leaders of the church because printing presses did not exist and the people could not read. Perhaps there is another way to learn what He taught which is outside of scripture…
Click to expand...
All I have to say is what else needs to be heard? He gave us the message that we were fallen and through Him are redeemed. He told us that we were destined for Hell but He purchased us an eternity in Heaven. He told us how we can get there (THROUGH CHRIST).

Adding to Scripture is very dangerous when there is no proof to back things up…If it is not in Scripture LEAVE IT OUT.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Here are some more informative links on the Canon of the New Testament:

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

davidmacd.com/catholic/bible_catholics_apocrypha.htm (at the bottom of this one)

As far as the Bible claiming inspiration for itself, there are other books that do the same such as the Moslems’ Koran or the Mormons’ Book of Mormon. If we are to convince nonbelievers of the authenticity of Scripture, this isn’t a very convincing way to do it. Just a thought.

-Jon
Click to expand...
Another thought is all of these things claim inspiration from the Bible but if they listened to not adding to or taking away from what is in Scripture and that it was FINAL; these religions would have never started.
 
As Catholics we should read scripture everyday, there is no doubt about that. Every day we are encouraged to go to mass or spend time in the church or read scripture. they are all ways to climb the mountain of God.
 
40.png
jpete79:
Another thought is all of these things claim inspiration from the Bible but if they listened to not adding to or taking away from what is in Scripture and that it was FINAL; these religions would have never started.
Click to expand...
I think you’re missing my point. The Koran says exactly the same thing as you’re saying - that IT is the final revelation of God. This is obviously not true, I’m just saying that it’s unreasonable to base your trust in something simply because it claims self-inspiration. Would you believe me just because I claimed to be inspired by God? I would hope not! I would need to back this claim up. The Catholic Church does that for Catholics. It is the safeguard of the Scriptures. Protestants no longer have such a thing since they’ve separated themselves from her. Like I said before, the Bible doesn’t say that nothing can be added to or taken from Bible, it says nothing can be added to or taken from “this book” - it’s referring to Revelation. But if you still want to interpret it your way, then why did Martin Luther do away with the Deutercanonical books? Scripture is an authoritative source, I agree with you; but, Tradition is not independent of Scripture, it complements it. The article you gave me actually demonstrates that point! This is the stance of the Catholic Church (as far as I understand it, so any fellow Catholics are free to correct me):

Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church: “Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition.”

Now, if we want to start quoting the Early Fathers, then we would have some fun. Although, I should point out, this would not be sola scriptura, so I don’t know if you give them any credence. However, they do shed light on Scripture’s early interpretation and the nature and practices of the Early Church. The Fathers were advocates of the baptism of infants (I noticed above that you object to this). Go here to see for yourself:

catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

Today, even many Protestants continue this ancient practice (ie - Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.).

I don’t know if you have the time, but I suggest that you read John Henry Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.” It can be found here:

newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

I think I’m going to get off for now. I have to start studying for finals. Wish me luck!

God bless.

Sincerely,
Jon 🙂
 
More on infant baptism:

catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

Also, on the importance of Christian unity in belief, check out my blog entry at:

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=27422461&blogID=65270145&Mytoken=d69fdb57-1f61-4235-ae7f-c16274722644

The debate was a little more “heated” than this one, so I hope you’re not offended by it, it wasn’t directed towards you.

Christ’s last prayer to the Father before his Passion was that his followers “may be one.” This was his dying wish! It is also quite clear throughout the New Testament that doctrine is very important. He warned us that, “a house divided against itself will not stand.” Without correct beliefs uniting us, then how can we be spiritually united? Read this website for more on the importance of doctrine:

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/doctrine.html

“No protestant should quote Scripture at all, for he has no means of knowing which books are inspired; Unless of course, he wants to accept the authority of the Catholic Church for that.”
-Fr. William Most

home.inreach.com/bstanley/verse.htm

Recently, Christians have been recognizing this problem of division. There seem to be two ways of ‘solving’ this problem. IMHO, the incorrect one, which is very popular, is to take the least common denominator of all protestant denominations and you end up with a nondenominational ‘church.’ On Marcus Grodi’s EWTN program The Journey Home, he often describes the theology behind this movement as “a mile wide and an inch deep.” No one wants to get too deep for fear of stepping on someone else’s toes or offending others so the ‘tough’ issues are avoided altogether. In doing this, however, we would be disobeying Christ in Matthew 28:18-20:

“Then Jesus approached and said to them, ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.’”

Likewise, we wouldn’t be holding fast to the traditions we were taught (I quoted that verse in my blog that’s linked above). To suggest that all tradition is evil (which many Protestants do), because Christ reprimanded the Pharisee’s for allowing the traditions of men to nullify the word of God, is simply unscriptural and silly. This is the same logic that Jehovah’s Witnesses use in condemning birthdays. Since the only birthdays being celebrated in the Bible were those of evil men, they conclude, incorrectly, that the celebration of all birthdays is evil. Some traditions of men within Christianity today are: Bible alone as sole authority; ‘accepting Jesus into our hearts as personal Lord and Savior’ to be saved; and once saved, always saved. Notice that none of these are Catholic beliefs. The second way that Christians have been trying to mend the divisions within Christianity is to return to Catholicism. More and more Protestants have been converting to Catholicism as their communities crumble (which Church was built on a rock?). Heck, the UCC recently voted on whether or not Christ was God!!! As we all know, truth isn’t determined by a majority vote. Lately, thank God, many Protestants are finding safe-haven back home in the Catholic Church.

I hope that none of this has offended anyone. I hope that all people on this forum, Catholic & non-Catholic, will come to find truth because to seek truth is to seek Christ since he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Finally, remember that there is no such thing as ‘my truth’ or ‘his truth,’ there is only the truth. The former would be considered relativism. Check out Peter Kreeft’s lecture on Relativism here:

peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism.htm

In Christ,
Jon 🙂
 
40.png
jpete79:
What I really want to know is why do we need the Catechism today? In Biblical times it was essential for people to use word of mouth for teaching as the literacy rate was extremely low. Therefore the apostles would go into communities to live Christ-like lives. Today however, the Bible has been translated (and can be found in original form if it is to be translated by oneself). Why is there a need for an organizational body to translate it for you in another document. Why can’t the Bible stand on its own two feet without the Catechism.
Click to expand...
Great question. The literal translation of the word “Catechism” means exactly: INSTRUCTION. It is mainly used in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initation for Adults) classes for converts, thus it is transmitted orally. If you actually read the Catechism, you will see pointers to Scripture which prove points its making. Martin Luther, the inventor of Sola Scriptura himself even had catechisms. Your proof-text attacks don’t work too well either, as John was speaking of the book of Revelation (the Bible is not one book, it is more like a library which was canonized in a council by Catholic bishops in the 4th century). The Catholic Church does not believe in Sola Scriptura (which itself isn’t biblical and is a ‘tradition of men’).

As to your claim against the Eucharist being symbolic then why did Martin Luther believe it was real Body & Blood of Christ? The founder of the Protestant Reformation. Also why is it that the Jews left Christ for the very reason you are? His teaching was that “This IS my body, this IS my blood” and “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”. Also, we see in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians verses 27 & 28 “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”. How is this to be interpretted anyway but literal? Fact is, the early Christian church (the Catholic Church)believed that it was His Body & Blood so we still believe Christ’s words today.
 
Semper Fi:
The Catholic Church does not believe in Sola Scriptura (which itself isn’t biblical and is a ‘tradition of men’).

As to your claim against the Eucharist being symbolic then why did Martin Luther believe it was real Body & Blood of Christ? The founder of the Protestant Reformation. Also why is it that the Jews left Christ for the very reason you are? His teaching was that “This IS my body, this IS my blood” and “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”. Also, we see in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians verses 27 & 28 “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”. How is this to be interpretted anyway but literal? Fact is, the early Christian church (the Catholic Church)believed that it was His Body & Blood so we still believe Christ’s words today.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Jim, like Semper Fi points out, the Catholic Church has never taught Sola Scriptura. I challenge you to back up this assertion.

Semper Fi, for some reason, your above post brought something to mind regarding the Eucharist. Somewhere along the line I heard that Judas’s rejection of Christ’s teaching regarding the Eucharist in John 6 was his first falling away. Here is what a website I found says about it: “Notice that this is the first time St. John mentions that Judas is going to betray Jesus (v. 71), that it immediately follows many of Jesus’s disciples falling away from him due to the apparent enormity of the idea of eating his flesh and drinking his blood (v. 60). In verse 64, St. John makes the connection between betrayal of Jesus and unbelief in what he has just taught. Here we learn that it was Judas’ failure to believe the Lord in preference to sense evidence that started him on the road to perdition.” Here’s the link:

The Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist

Wouldn’t you think that if Christ intended Communion to be merely symbolic he would have clarified himself so that these disciples would come back? This isn’t something that’s easy to understand either today or 2000 years ago. That’s why it’s considered a mystery. As Catholics, we take Christ’s word for it because we beliebe him to be God. Also, the only other apostolic Church, the schismatic Orthodox, believe in the Real Presence as well.

The verse that you refer to here makes a good point that I would like to reiterate. “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). How can we symbolically eat and drink judgment on ourselves?! I think that this verse shows that the Eucharist is more than a symbol and that it is truly the Body & Blood of Jesus - otherwise, there would be no consequence at all if Communion were merely bread and wine.

Furthermore, in Luke 24:29-31, Jesus was walking with his disciples after the Resurrection and they didn’t recognize him…until he said Mass. “But they urged him, ‘Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.’ So he went in to stay with them. And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.” Christ is “staying with them” in the Eucharist. That is his way of remaining with his Church for when he ascends into heaven.

Lastly, I’d like remind everyone that the early Christians were accused of cannibalism by the pagans (which is ridiculous) because of their belief in the Eucharist. Finally, to quote Justin Martyr:

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Meditate over John 6.

“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” John 6:55

Sincerely,
Jon*
 
This quote doesn’t sound very Sola Scriptura-ish:

“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the fathers. On this the church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian” -St. Athanasius (4th century)

Now, here are just some of my favorite verses/quote:

“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;…”
1 Pet 3:15

“Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.” Romans 12:2

“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” -Pope John Paul II

“…freedom is not simply about enjoying life in total autonomy, but rather about living by the measure of truth and goodness, so that we ourselves can become true and good.” -Pope Benedict XVI

“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it.” -Pope St. Felix III

“Truth has always bothered people and is never comfortable.” -Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church”
-Fulton Sheen

“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.” -St. Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” -G.K. Chesterton

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” -G.K. Chesterton

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Sorry, they were sort of off topic, I just thought I’d throw them out there.

Finally, here is another thing I wrote on my blog that might be helpful. 🙂

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=27422461&blogID=65274366&Mytoken=26d621ec-05e5-4659-bf4a-5f8a20829513

-Jon

+in hoc signo vinces+
 
40.png
jpete79:
All I have to say is what else needs to be heard? He gave us the message that we were fallen and through Him are redeemed. He told us that we were destined for Hell but He purchased us an eternity in Heaven. He told us how we can get there (THROUGH CHRIST).

Adding to Scripture is very dangerous when there is no proof to back things up…If it is not in Scripture LEAVE IT OUT.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about adding to Scripture? I said Jesus taught the Apostles and we have no record of what was said, yet He tells us we need to live by His every word. Presumably some of that teaching has been transferred to us via the letters of the Apostles which we have compiled into what we call the New Testament, but there is no reason to think ALL of it was written down…in fact John tells us it was not or else all the books in the world could not hold all the information.

The Gospel of John tells us that **“the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeks such to worship Him. God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.” ** (John 4, 23-24).

So we are told by Jesus Himself that we need to live by every word of God. We also know that not everything Jesus (God) said was written down. We also know that God expects us to worship in spirit and in truth.

Okay all that being said, my questions to you are these:
  1. How are you to **know ** that you are living by every word of God?
  2. How are you to become certain that you are worshipping in spirit and in truth? I ask this because “truth” with a little error mixed in cannot be called “truth”…and yet God said we must worship in truth. If we cannot say for certain what is truth, then we cannot claim to know God who identifies Himself as The Truth. And if we cannot claim to know God, then we cannot claim to love and serve Him.
So again, how do you know with certainty what to believe?

We already established that you and I do not agree, and that neither of us would be so bold as to claim the other is not a Christian of good will praying to the same Holy Spirit.

We also aready established that God can and** has** given the gift of infallibility to men before (the authors of the Bible).

You have not provided an alternative solution for this rather significant problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top