Seriously, can you show me?

[Damascus]

I have looked and looked for even one thread on this forum where a bible alone faith has had a compelling argument for their position on this forum.

Never saw one.

Did I miss one along the way? Where is it?

Its getting boring trying to see their side when I have never seen it expressed in any way that cant be refuted.

Why cant the bible alone people make a case?

 

[AlegreFe]

Because they don’t have a leg to stand on http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Giggle.gif or sit on… which in their case their stool only has two legs instead of three. That stool will definitely fall if it only has two legs and not three.

 

[rr1213]

There have been plenty of discussions in these forums over the last few months where the Protestant position has been compelling, but both of you come from a Catholic perspective which is why those arguments have not seemed convincing to you. The same sort of mentality is why Catholic arguments are often not convincing to Protestants.

 

[Allweather]

There have been plenty of discussions in these forums over the last few months where the Protestant position has been compelling, but both of you come from a Catholic perspective which is why those arguments have not seemed convincing to you. The same sort of mentality is why Catholic arguments are often not convincing to Protestants.

I have never seen a Protestant argument, in this forum, or anywhere else, that has been compelling in making a case for these things, sola this, sola that. The deeper one studies history and scripture, the more likely he is to move towards the Catholic faith. That is because Catholicism doesn’t disregard ANY scripture, nor does it disregard its own history. Tradition, among other things, means always looking back to see what has gone before and comparing it to what is coming ahead, and is here now.

Protestants disregard many historical and scriptural facts in order to support their rebellion against authority. This rebellion has opened the door also for the proliferation of strange cults like Moonies and Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists. Look at the fruit that falls from that tree. Jesus prayed that we may all be one. If the fruit of the rebellion is disunity, then it is OBVIOUS that there’s something wrong with the rebellion.

 

[rr1213]

I have never seen a Protestant argument, in this forum, or anywhere else, that has been compelling in making a case for these things, sola this, sola that. The deeper one studies history and scripture, the more likely he is to move towards the Catholic faith. That is because Catholicism doesn’t disregard ANY scripture, nor does it disregard its own history. Tradition, among other things, means always looking back to see what has gone before and comparing it to what is coming ahead, and is here now.

Protestants disregard many historical and scriptural facts in order to support their rebellion against authority. This rebellion has opened the door also for the proliferation of strange cults like Moonies and Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists. Look at the fruit that falls from that tree. Jesus prayed that we may all be one. If the fruit of the rebellion is disunity, then it is OBVIOUS that there’s something wrong with the rebellion.

This is a Catholic apologetics website where devout Catholics are often “more Catholic than the Pope.” If you don’t believe me on that one, take a look at the numerous threads criticizing Bendedict, Vatican II, the vernacular mass, etc., etc., etc. In light of that fact, as well as the openly apologetic mindset of the Catholics who post on this site, it is not surprising that you find folks saying that they have never seen a single compelling argument for a single Protestant perspective. Go to Protestant apologetics websites and see how many Protestants there admit to reading a compelling argument for the Catholic position in their forums…

 

[Damascus]

rr1213,

Dont go away so fast, I have to ask you, I really would like the link or the thread.

I know there is no way I could be aware of them all and truly I was looking for one here on this site. I am not ruling out that they dont exist, I am simply saying I would need a pointer to find it here.

Dont get upset, I agree it would be hard for me to see it as you say, but I would like to weed out the obvious duds first and get to a few that have some meat on the bones so to speak.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is a Catholic apologetics website where devout Catholics are often “more Catholic than the Pope.” If you don’t believe me on that one, take a look at the numerous threads criticizing Bendedict, Vatican II, the vernacular mass, etc., etc., etc. In light of that fact, as well as the openly apologetic mindset of the Catholics who post on this site, it is not surprising that you find folks saying that they have never seen a single compelling argument for a single Protestant perspective. Go to Protestant apologetics websites and see how many Protestants there admit to reading a compelling argument for the Catholic position in their forums…

Even in those Protestant Apologist Forum, their argument for the Catholic position is refuted and I find many Protestant Apologist reason are rather weak. When they are refuted, they kick out the Catholic member in their forum because the Catholic made a convincing argument that support the Catholic position.

I have know many Protestants and I have talk to them, and everytime they question me about Catholicism, I gave them an answer. When I ask them a question about their faith like Sola Scriptura, they are mute. Protestants are weak when they try to defend their doctrine and man-made traditions.

 

[brkn1]

The very idea that we need more than the Word of God to be saved is an insult to God’s ability to communicate adequately.
Just the words and deeds of Jesus in any one of the four Gospels is adequate with the Spirit’s help.

No person or organization has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit’s sovereign guidance.
You can play “hocus-pocus” and add stuff all you want the way the scribes and Pharisees did. Many religions such as the RCC, Muslims, Mormons, JWs, Gnostics, etc. have a need for more than God’s Word to make sense out of their complicated beliefs.

I find the Bible to be more than adequate, even though I realize that no argument will be compelling to anyone who choses to also accept man’s additions to God’s Word, (as if man’s word holds equal weight or can even be fully trusted without complete biblical support).

Peter had it right when he answered Jesus saying “…, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)

( 1st John 5:10) also sums it up: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself. he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son.”

God’s Word is adequate without man’s additions.

 

[Damascus]

The very idea that we need more than the Word of God to be saved is an insult to God’s ability to communicate adequately.
Just the words and deeds of Jesus in any one of the four Gospels is adequate with the Spirit’s help.

No person or organization has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit’s sovereign guidance.
You can play “hocus-pocus” and add stuff all you want the way the scribes and Pharisees did. Many religions such as the RCC, Muslims, Mormons, JWs, Gnostics, etc. have a need for more than God’s Word to make sense out of their complicated beliefs.

I find the Bible to be more than adequate, even though I realize that no argument will be compelling to anyone who choses to also accept man’s additions to God’s Word, (as if man’s word holds equal weight or can even be fully trusted without complete biblical support).

Peter had it right when he answered Jesus saying “…, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)

( 1st John 5:10) also sums it up: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself. he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son.”

God’s Word is adequate without man’s additions.

Here is yet another example of the lousy apologetics I see on this forum from the protestant POV.

This post could be picked apart by a bunch of different Protestant faiths let alone a Catholic one.

See what I mean guys? This is what I am talking about!

Just show me a link or a thread that is compelling please. On any topic.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The very idea that we need more than the Word of God to be saved is an insult to God’s ability to communicate adequately.
Just the words and deeds of Jesus in any one of the four Gospels is adequate with the Spirit’s help.

The Word of God is the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which is upholded by the Catholic Church.

No person or organization has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit’s sovereign guidance.
You can play “hocus-pocus” and add stuff all you want the way the scribes and Pharisees did. Many religions such as the RCC, Muslims, Mormons, JWs, Gnostics, etc. have a need for more than God’s Word to make sense out of their complicated beliefs.

I have heard that excuse from an Ex-Catholic and use the excuse of religion. The Catholic Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth, which is stated in 1 Tim 3:15. It is not the Bible.

I find the Bible to be more than adequate, even though I realize that no argument will be compelling to anyone who choses to also accept man’s additions to God’s Word, (as if man’s word holds equal weight or can even be fully trusted without complete biblical support).

The Bible we know today was put together by the Council of Rome (382 A.D), Council of Hippo (393 A.D), amd Council of Carthage (392 A.D). The Church then is Catholic. The word Catholic was first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 A.D. These Councils were formed before the Reformation in 1517 A.D. The Church gave you the Bible. Luther remove the books 4 books of the OT.

Peter had it right when he answered Jesus saying “…, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)

This has nothing to do with Word of God. Peter said this when Jesus ask his Apostles, if they leave since the other disciple left after telling them that they have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood.

( 1st John 5:10) also sums it up: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself. he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son.”

If you read the passages preceding from that passage. John tells that that we love God and obey his commandment. Let me quote.

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; our faith. Who is that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” 1 John 5:2-5. Belief is not enough. Deeds are required as well.

God’s Word is adequate without man’s additions.

Yes, the Word of God given to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And of course, God’s word was not available in the written form we now have (or translations thereof) for nearly 400 years after the Resurrection.

That same Bible was codified by the Catholic Church (there is no way around it, there was no other Christian Church in existence).

Nor was God’s word available to the majority of people until at the very earliest the 18th-19th century A.D., because most people were not literate. And for the first 1300 years or so most Bibles were in Latin or Greek, so even a person literate in say French or Spanish or Middle English alone still could not read a Latin or Greek bible.

So God meant, then, that for at least 1800 years His written word was not going to be available to individuals to be read by them. . .yet supposedly the Bible was somehow ‘enough’–even though hardly anyone had the knowledge to read it on his/her own for those centuries?

Well I’m sorry but that idea doesn’t make sense.

Yes the Bible is very important as a tool and guide.

No it is not ‘enough’ and nobody ever said it was, especially not the Bible itself.

Jesus founded a church and Jesus gave authority to a church, not to a book, not even the very best of books.

 

[rr1213]

Damascus, take a look at the threads listed below. You may come away with a better understanding, if not appreciation, of Protestant perspectives on various matters.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117947

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=114642

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=114978

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116675

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=122638

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121895

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118965

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117590

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115649

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=113002

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=111586

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=113024

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117673

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116368

 

[Damascus]

Thanks rr1213! I am gonna give it a go!

Hope you will come back to check now and again to see if I have any questions?

 

[brkn1]

Hi Mannyfit75,

Are you seriously saying that Simon Peter is only referring to the physical blood and flesh of Jesus when he said that Jesus “…hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:68)?

Is it not possible that Jesus’ words were also speaking about us feeding on the "spiritual bread’ of His Word?

 

[Damascus]

Hi Mannyfit75,

Are you seriously saying that Simon Peter is only referring to the physical blood and flesh of Jesus when he said that Jesus “…hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:68)?

Is it not possible that Jesus’ words were also speaking about us feeding on the "spiritual bread’ of His Word?

It is literal, no doubt. Judas did not like the teaching and right after hearing it he stole from the purse and you know how that turned out.

So, I dont follow in his shoes of not accepting what Jesus said. Many left Jesus for this very reason and sadly Still do. Not us.

 

[exoflare]

Here is yet another example of the lousy apologetics I see on this forum from the protestant POV.

This post could be picked apart by a bunch of different Protestant faiths let alone a Catholic one.

See what I mean guys? This is what I am talking about!

Just show me a link or a thread that is compelling please. On any topic.

Yeah, I hear you. I sort of gave up on asking those type of questions some time ago because that was just the kind of response I would keep getting. All emotion and no substance.

 

[Damascus]

I just got through the first 5 or so links that rr1213 kindly posted for me here and for us all to ponder.

I am sorry to say, but I dont understand the first one as being applicable to my concerns at all.

I am truthfully attempting to find the compelling aruguments in the others but I must need to go over it again I missed something I guess.

I will keep going down the list.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hi Mannyfit75,

Are you seriously saying that Simon Peter is only referring to the physical blood and flesh of Jesus when he said that Jesus “…hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:68)?

Is it not possible that Jesus’ words were also speaking about us feeding on the "spiritual bread’ of His Word?

I’m going to have to give you the entire verse, and yes the Apostles knew Jesus was speaking literally. Why do you think they didn’t leave Him.

John 6:60: Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus in himself hat his disciple murmured at it, and said to them, “Do you not take offense to this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” It is the spirit that give life, the flesh avail; the words that I have spoken to you are of spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew the first who were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him, And then he said, “This why I told you that no one can come to to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

After this, many of his disciple drew back and no longer went about him. Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered. “Whom shall we go? You have the word of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered to them. "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is the devil? He spoke of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Jesus in the previous verses called himself the bread of life, and many of his followers could not believe and therefore left him. He ask the Apostles if they would leave too, but the Apostles remain with him. One have to ask the question, why did they leave? The time the Gospel of John was written, many of the Jews at the time were well verse in OT text. They also know well that the Mosaic Law forbid cannabalism. When Jesus repeatly said, that his followers must eat his flesh and drink his blood, they will have eternal life. Hence eating the flesh of the Son of Man was cannabalism, the Jews left because they don’t believe. If it was symbolic, Jesus would explain himself like he did in his parable. Instead, Jesus repeatly said that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Jesus also said that his flesh is food indeed, and his blood is drink indeed. There is no symbolism in this passage. Jesus means literally to consume his flesh and drink his blood.

The Jews again ask Jesus how is it possible. Jesus replied, Whoever eats the flesh of the Son of Man and Drink his Blood shall have eternal life and I shall raise him on the last day. The Apostles knew that Jesus was speaking literally, and this was fulfilled during the Last Supper, when Jesus instituted the Holy Communion. “Take ye, This is My Body,” and having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank it. And he said to them; This is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many."

 

[AlegreFe]

Damascus, take a look at the threads listed below. You may come away with a better understanding, if not appreciation, of Protestant perspectives on various matters.

That’s a lot of threads to read. So far I’ve read the first 3 links/threads you have in your post and not one even talks about sola fide or sola scriptura. The first thread is about the C of E. And there’s no argument about sola anything. The same thing with the other two. There are only a few bible verses but nothing about sola anything.

Did you just do a search and put certain key words and didn’t bother to read the threads?

 

[Damascus]

That’s a lot of threads to read. So far I’ve read the first 3 links/threads you have in your post and not one even talks about sola fide or sola scriptura. The first thread is about the C of E. And there’s no argument about sola anything. The same thing with the other two. There are only a few bible verses but nothing about sola anything.

Did you just do a search and put certain key words and didn’t bother to read the threads?

AlegraFe, its kinda the same sola song, same sola dance.

Sola fide? Fide et Ratio is my response.