Sola Scriptura is True

[PJM]

=DD2007-That old excuse has been refuted long ago.

Here is the proper exegesis for this passage:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

***Before going further friend, I humbly suggest that Protestants have far more important issues dealing with ones Salvation, to deal with then tis folly of “SS.” For example notice the last five words in you’re quote.

And how about an objective reading and understanding these verses [part of the “all.”] ***

***Mt.16:15-19 [note the use of singular terms : “I, me, my, rock, church and you [Peter]” and Mt. 18:18, Eph.4:4-8 [keeping in mind this was written by a Catholic for Catholics]. And 1 John 1:8-10, 1 Jn.5: 16-18. and John 20:21-23. And finally in this SHORT list, John Chapter 4:40-60.

Perhaps it would be prudent to take your own advice before pontificating.:***shrug:

*Breathed out by God *

• Inspired by God authoritative, the words of God, God made this writing happen for a purpose.

Catholics by belief, teaching and practice accept the wisdom and finality of this thought.

*Profitable for teaching, for reproof, correction, training in righteousness *

• This is the purpose of scripture. This is what it is good for. Teaching the truth. Rebuking false doctrines. Correcting errors, and training in righeousness. That is everything a christian would need.

***Except for the final “teaching” we agree. ***

***John 21: 24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

---

Combine this logical TRUTH [Christ was in active ministery about 25,344 hours, so if He worked only 12 hours a day, that means He worked, talked, taught about 12,672 hours. Now being a perfect God, He surely did not waste time or words. So is it even remotely possible that everything that Christ taught, spoke, wanted us to know and do is found in the NT?

[COLOR=“darkred”]2 Thess.3: “6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us”

2 Thess:2: 15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.’

1 Peter 4:17 "For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? "

This is to be read in the light of 2 Tim.3:16 quoted above!

*That the man of God may be competent *- Who scripture is meant for and for what purpose. Those who are regenerate believers in God the elect; especially teachers.

*Equipped for EVERY good work *- This is the part where the passage teaches sufficiency of scripture. It is inspired by God so that a child of God can be equipped for EVERY good work that can possibly be done here on earth. If there is any work that can be done that isn;t in scripture then this passage isn’t true. Therefore, one must believe in the sufficiency of scripture if they believe in biblical inerrancy which the Roman Church claims it does.

So the word every is all encompasing and certainly teaches sufficiency.

As a Catholic I am gravely obligated to accept the ENTIRE word of God. If Christ expects that from His ONE Church, will He expect less from those who abandoned the "Entire Word???"

Also, The table of contents of scripture is found in this passage:

Ephesians 2:20 ESV
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

The prophets and apostles spoke from God. Everything they wrote is canonical. We have all of their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture.

As an FYI friend the Orginal and only Christian Bible for the first 1,600 YEARS is the Catholic Bible with 77 books. Luthern Calvin et.al. short changed ya’all!

That is how we got the bible. The prophets and apostles wrote it under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Church received it from them as true. Jesus Christ himself the Word of God is the cornerstone of the Church that is built upon the revelation of the prophets and apostles from God himself. That is why the church is apostolic we have their teachings recorded in scripture. The canon was closed when the last apostle (John) died. The bible is the written word of God and includes everything in it we need for faith and practice.

***Yep, all 77 Books. So friend why not take your own advise and follw it?

Love and prayers,***

Your apologists have been refuted.

 

[TristanCross]

Tristan,

Your patristic quotes demonstrate amply the authority of scripture in the early Church. Catholic teaching says the same thing. But saying that scripture is authoritative is not the same as saying that scripture alone is authoritative. Check this out.

I have. Catholics tend to take quotes of the early fathers out of context to support their beliefs.

Please, check this out.

 

[rinnie]

Yes, I understand what you are saying. Oddly enough,(as you may perhaps see it) I am very close to agreement with you.
Now, it is true that my definition of the Church is wider than yours. But when it comes to the subject at hand–Sola Scriptura-- I have resisted, and I will continue any attempts by anyone (Protestant, Catholic, EO, or the ever-popular Upstate NY Non-Trinitarian Nudist Baptist Pagans) to set Sola Scriptura (or any of the other “solas” )as being a legitimate theological stance.
SS is simply indefensible. It denies the witness of history, the witness of the Church Fathers, and the reasoning ability placed in us by God Almighty. Anyone who tries to argue for SS is in the position of defending something because he likes it, not because it has any support from the Church. (And that means the wider Church that both Edwin & I speak of, as well as the less broad definition that you propose).
I will wrestle a Catholic to the wall on this subject every bit as much as I will wrestle an Anglican, a Presbyterian, or a fellow Methodist.
As far as following the lead of the teachings of Rome as the basis for choosing between two alternatives, I would expect that to be the response of a Catholic. What is peculiar in this thread is, that we have a couple of us “heretics” defending Tradition and at least one Catholic trying to move away from it.
This is a bizarre state of affairs, but:shrug: there it is.

I will do one better: I will go so far as to say that the fact that a pope or popes–the Magisterium of the Catholic Church–adopting a position (on anything) gives more weight to that said position, than if some guy from, say, my (hopefully mythical) UNYNTNBPs spouting an opinion that came to him in a dream on Thursday last after indulging in a couple of Old Granddads.
The Magisterium has a solid basis for acceptance. That guy with the bottle of my own :tiphat:Favorite Poison?..Well. He has the:whacky: sound of his own voice (and good taste in liquor).

But again, I am with you on this point. I grant you freely that my reasons may be less than satisfactory to you, but there we are.
Sola Scriptura is not true. It cannot be true. It flies in the face of historic Christianity. And the fact that I believe that the Brothers Wesley were firmly within said historic Christianity, whilst you disagree is, for me, a very minor matter, compared to the total theological and exegetical chaos that ensues when people start listening to their own imaginations, and the Little Voices in their dreams.

Thank-you for your thoughfull response. There is nothing I love to see better then is Christians of all demon. to find more common ground then uncommon. While we I am sure will disagree on many things that is okay. But I do respect you and your response.

 

[Convert66]

I posted this for DD, but he is offline visiting with family and/or friends for a while. Maybe Tristan would like to take a shot:

First, your argument that “all scripture” makes the man of God competent for every good work doesn’t work, because the passage for “all scripture” is "pasa graphe" which doesn’t mean ALL but EVERY scripture. That is, for your argument to hold you would have to argue not that ALL scripture is competent for equipping the man of God, but that ANY single, and EVERY single scripture is competent to render the man of God equipped for “every good work.” That is, by your argument, one single verse out of the entire Bible would be sufficient to make one equipped for “every good work.” This means you are not arguing sola scriptura but sola John 1:1 or sola Genesis 34:2. etc.

If that’s the case, tell me how I Chronicles 1:4 is sufficient to equip you for EVERY good work?

Also if Scripture alone makes the man of God “competent”, “complete” or sufficiently equipped for every good work, why does St. Paul use the word “artios”? In James 1:4, for instance, steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” These are stronger words than “artios” and so we would have to say that “steadfastness alone” would make the man of God equipped for every good work.

Titus 3:8 says that good deeds are “profitable”, “excellent and beneficial” but surely you wouldn’t argue “sola works” would you?

II Tim. 2:21 says that purity (cleansing from these things) makes one “ready for every good work.” "Purity alone?

Col. 4:12 says that Epaphras is praying that the Colossians may be “perfect and fully assured in all the will of God.” “Prayer alone?”

As per the accusation that Catholics take the ECF’s out of context, why do you snip quotes and not post entire passages so that we can see the context of their statements about Scripture?

If Scripture alone is sufficient, as you argue for St. Augustine, then why do you not celebrate the Eucharist as St. Augustine did—being that He believed in the Real Presence and derived the doctrine from Scripture Alone? Infant baptism—per your interpretation of St. Augustine, since he derived it from Scripture Alone? Marian devotion–Scripture Alone? Why is he a Catholic if he believed, as you claim in Scripture Alone? And if he did, then why don’t you?

It is you that is taking St. Augustine out of context, and until you believe what he derived from “scripture alone” then you are not being faithful to St. Augustine’s interpretation and belief —which you say is from Scripture Alone.

It’s a shell game, Tristan. You have nothing.

All my best . . .

 

[Randy_Carson]

That old excuse has been refuted long ago.

Your apologists have been refuted.

Rubbish. Do some homework…this is a tired argument that was defeated long ago.

As Patrick Madrid pointed out when he whipped James White in the debate, "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?, just because someone is equipped, it does not mean they are trained to use the equipment properly. White claimed that his local bike shop equipped him with everything he needed…bicycle, helmet, water bottle, etc. Madrid pointed out that someone who has never ridden a bike before will not know what to do with all the gear or remain on the bike for very long. He also pointed out that the army equips its soldiers for battle, but it also trains them to use the equipment.

Here is an alternative explanation of your proof text:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

Another point to consider is that Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.

There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.

This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?

Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Also, The table of contents of scripture is found in this passage:

Ephesians 2:20 ESV
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

The prophets and apostles spoke from God. Everything they wrote is canonical. We have all of their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture. That is how we got the bible. The prophets and apostles wrote it under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Church received it from them as true. Jesus Christ himself the Word of God is the cornerstone of the Church that is built upon the revelation of the prophets and apostles from God himself. That is why the church is apostolic we have their teachings recorded in scripture. The canon was closed when the last apostle (John) died. The bible is the written word of God and includes everything in it we need for faith and practice.

Where does the Bible teach that the canon was closed with the death of the last apostle?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have. Catholics tend to take quotes of the early fathers out of context to support their beliefs.

Please, check this out.

William Webster? William Webster???



For an introduction into the EXTENSIVE refutation by numerous Catholic apologists including author and convert, Steve Ray, click here:

catholic-convert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=102

 

[Randy_Carson]

If the Catholic interpretation is correct, we must be born three times (naturally, by water, and by Spirit). When someone is born-again, they do not become born again twice.

God bless you.

No, baptism and the impartation of the Holy Spirit are inter-related as the Bible clearly teaches.

Born Again Through Baptism
By Stephen Ray
blog.catholic-convert.com/?p=238

---

1) The first creation came from the the earth which was covered with WATER and the SPIRIT hovered over the waters and from the water emerged land and man and God’s first creation (Gen 1:1-2).

---

2) A new humanity was started with Noah through WATER and SPIRIT. The ark went through the water and a dove (representing the Spirit) hovered overhead with an olive branch. Peter said this represents baptism which “now saves us” (1 Peter 3:18-21).

---

3) The nation of Israel was created through the WATER of the Red Sea (baptism) with the cloud and fire of the Holy SPIRIT overhead — my oh my, again we have water and Spirit (Ex 14).

---

4) Ezekiel then describes what the New Covenant will look like and he said we will be sprinkled with clean WATER and his SPIRIT will be placed in us (Ez 36:25). Born again, I suspect.

---

5) Then Jesus, right before saying you must be born of “water and the Spirit” had just gone down into the WATER of the Jordan and the SPIRIT came down and landed on his head. Again, water and the Spirit (Mt 3:16; Jn 1:29).

---

**6) **Jesus teaches Nicodemus that he must be born again, or from above which is accomplished through “WATER and the SPIRIT.“

---

7) When Jesus finished these words what was the first thing he did? He went down and baptized people in the Jordan with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2).

---

8) At the first Holy Ghost Gospel Revival meeting Peter stood up at Pentecost and said, “Repent, and be baptized (WATER) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy SPIRIT“ (Acts 2:38).

---

9) Peter also says “Baptism now saves you“ (1 Pet 3:18), and Paul is told “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16), and Paul writes that we are saved “by the washing of regeneration (WATER) and renewal in the Holy SPIRIT“ (Titus 3:5).

%between%Too bad many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists refuse to see it but the Bible is pretty clear about new birth through the sacrament of baptism. Jesus is not ambiguous in this matter and he is alluding quite clearly to new beginnings in the Old Testament. The Early Church is also very clear and so is the teaching of the Catholic Church today.

St. Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”

When someone asks me “Have you been born again?“ I simply answer “Absolutely, but I’ve been born again the Bible Way!“

 

[Bill_Pick]

dj_dave:
If he is telling the truth about his profile DD is Calvinist and I will say a very bad one at that he a disgrace to call him self one and a disgrace to call him self a Christian.

 

[Contarini]

Are you saying Catholics have never done what you claim everybody else does? You claim John 3:5 is speaking about baptism of water and baptism of Spirit. But if you see the scripture which proceeds after, it is clearly talking about natural birth and the birth of the Holy Spirit.

John 3:5-6 KJV
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Even the previous scripture proves the interpretation of natural birth:

John 3:4
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

How so? Well, Nicodemus basically asks Jesus how a man can be born twice. If the Catholic interpretation is correct, we must be born three times (naturally, by water, and by Spirit). When someone is born-again, they do not become born again twice.

God bless you.

That’s a highly strained and desperate exegesis dictated to you by your commitment to flawed presuppositions.

When Jesus says that someone must be born “of water and the Spirit” He is not talking about two births but one. It’s clear to me from the very context you cite that Jesus is explaining the *second *birth in response to Nicodemus’s question. The *second *birth is the birth by water and the Spirit. Not two additional births, but one, with both an internal and an external aspect.

When I first started thinking about this passage as a child, it really bothered me, because it seemed to me that it taught that baptism was the means by which people were born again. At the time I thought I knew that this couldn’t be true. But I have never doubted that that was the most likely interpretation of the passage in the absence of strong theological reasons to take a different approach. In fact, I first heard of your type of interpretation from the Catholic book *Surprised by Truth, *and was extremely indignant with the book for (as I thought) reporting an extremely weird view that no sane Protestant would possibly accept as if it were common. I have found out since, to my surprise, that this interpretation is common.

Given the view of exegesis I’ve been defending against Lapey, I can’t condemn your approach out of hand. Interpreting “water and the Spirit” as two different things is certainly in keeping with how the rabbis and the Fathers often proceed. But those kinds of interpretations are always dictated by theological considerations–they are not the way that a modern scholar would interpret the text in its original context. There’s nothing wrong with interpreting the text based on theological considerations. We all do it. But you should be honest about this and expose your theological assumptions to examination.

Edwin

 

[Bill_Pick]

Rubbish. Do some homework…this is a tired argument that was defeated long ago.

As Patrick Madrid pointed out when he whipped James White in the debate, "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?, just because someone is equipped, it does not mean they are trained to use the equipment properly. White claimed that his local bike shop equipped him with everything he needed…bicycle, helmet, water bottle, etc. Madrid pointed out that someone who has never ridden a bike before will not know what to do with all the gear or remain on the bike for very long. He also pointed out that the army equips its soldiers for battle, but it also trains them to use the equipment.

The Languages Of The Bible

1. Were all the books of the Bible originally written in one language?
   No, besides Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic were used.
2. What books were written in Hebrew?
   Almost all the books of the Old Testament.
3. What books were written in Greek?
   In the Old Testament, the Second Book of Machabees and the Book of Wisdom; in the New Testament, all books except the Gospel of St. Matthew.
4. What books were written in Aramaic?
   The Gospel of St. Matthew.
5. When were the books of the Old Testament, that were originally written in Hebrew, translated into Greek?
   About 220 years before Christ.
6. Why was the translation from Hebrew into Greek made?
   Because the Jewish people was dispersed into countries where the Greek tongue predominated, and so it gradually forgot the mother tongue, speaking only Greek. Hence the wish to have the Bible in the Greek tongue.

Here is an alternative explanation of your proof text:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

Another point to consider is that Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.

There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.

This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?

Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.

 

[Convert66]

Contarini,

Don’t you have some work to do?:tsktsk:

Get off the internet and GET TO WORK!

All my best . . .

 

[josie_L]

There were lots of reasons. With regard to Scotland–as I said, you usually find important movements being led by elites. Certainly in Scotland the monarchy was not the moving agency. Scandinavia I give you, although I’ve read (in a Catholic source, though I admit I can’t remember the author right now) the claim that Catholic missionaries in the 18th century encountered Norwegian peasants who didn’t even know that Norway had broken with Rome. That indicates that in this region at least the common people were indifferent to the Reformation rather than hostile.

Yes, but what led those elites to enforce Protestantism on the rest of the country? Now as for the Norwegian peasants being indifferent to the reformation, possibly, however, this only serves to highlight the fact that those who imposed this religion did not do so for the sake and salvation of the people but rather for the benefits they would accrue for themselves.

It’s not that simple. (Technically Geneva wasn’t part of Switzerland at the time, but that’s not really the point.) The Genevans had kicked out the bishop before Protestant preachers ever arrived. As elsewhere in Europe, the Protestants were able to build on widespread anticlerical sentiment. Of course they then used force to cement their control and to impose discipline.

By Genevans do you mean the civil authorities in Geneva? I don’t think the anticlerical sentiment as you so put it was widespread, if it were there would be no need to use force.

I think part of the problem here is that you are reading the whole story with anachronistic American eyes. You are assuming that a “real” religious movement is bottom-up and that because the Reformation needed the support of rulers and elites in order to prevail, therefore it somehow wasn’t really motivated by religious concerns. That’s not a valid argument. As I keep saying, just about any movement in history that has any success is led by elites and gains the support of people in power. It’s not as if the Catholic Church didn’t depend heavily on monarchs and the nobility as well. In many parts of Europe–such as France–the Reformation tended to be supported by the lesser nobility and the middle classes and opposed by the monarchy and the higher aristocracy.

No I’m stating that the motives for the elite in bringing about Protestantism had more to do with money, nationalism and power than it had to do with doctrinal issues.

I can’t see that this opinion is well founded. By the time Henry declared independence from Rome in 1534, a number of German cities and principalities had already become Protestant. And of course England wasn’t firmly in the Protestant camp until the reign of Elizabeth–one could even argue until the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. Furthermore, I think that your statement supports my accusation that you are overemphasizing England. That’s natural–I gather that you, like myself, are a native English speaker, and we tend to put more emphasis on our own cultural heritage. For me that has been counteracted by studying with an expert on the Continental Reformation who refused to let me write my dissertation on a British topic!

England just wasn’t as important in the European scene as you are assuming. It wasn’t totally insignificant, but it was very much on the periphery of Europe and its actions didn’t have the kind of impact that those of France or the Holy Roman Empire did.
Edwin

By his bad example King Henry VIII led others to do the same. In other words, the precedent that the English King had set and the benefits that he reaped propelled other elites/monarchy in breaking away from the Church.

 

[caoimhin]

Catholics tend to take quotes of the early fathers out of context to support their beliefs.

Not from where I’m standing. I’ve seen both sides present their supporting patristic quotes and read some of the Fathers (not all) for myself, as a Protestant mind you. If you can get through Irenaeus and still believe that the early Church didn’t believe in apostolic authority passed by succession to the Catholic bishops, whose Tradition was the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, or read Justin Martyr and claim that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist wasn’t the orthodox position… I don’t know what to tell you.

Are you an expert on patristic writing? How do you know it’s not your side that is quoting the Fathers out of context? It’s not out of context simply because you believe the Fathers taught otherwise.

 

[TristanCross]

William Webster? William Webster???



For an introduction into the EXTENSIVE refutation by numerous Catholic apologists including author and convert, Steve Ray, click here:

catholic-convert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=102

How do I view a .doc file?

 

[TristanCross]

No, baptism and the impartation of the Holy Spirit are inter-related as the Bible clearly teaches.

Born Again Through Baptism
By Stephen Ray
blog.catholic-convert.com/?p=238

---

1) The first creation came from the the earth which was covered with WATER and the SPIRIT hovered over the waters and from the water emerged land and man and God’s first creation (Gen 1:1-2).

---

2) A new humanity was started with Noah through WATER and SPIRIT. The ark went through the water and a dove (representing the Spirit) hovered overhead with an olive branch. Peter said this represents baptism which “now saves us” (1 Peter 3:18-21).

---

3) The nation of Israel was created through the WATER of the Red Sea (baptism) with the cloud and fire of the Holy SPIRIT overhead — my oh my, again we have water and Spirit (Ex 14).

---

4) Ezekiel then describes what the New Covenant will look like and he said we will be sprinkled with clean WATER and his SPIRIT will be placed in us (Ez 36:25). Born again, I suspect.

---

5) Then Jesus, right before saying you must be born of “water and the Spirit” had just gone down into the WATER of the Jordan and the SPIRIT came down and landed on his head. Again, water and the Spirit (Mt 3:16; Jn 1:29).

---

**6) **Jesus teaches Nicodemus that he must be born again, or from above which is accomplished through “WATER and the SPIRIT.“

---

7) When Jesus finished these words what was the first thing he did? He went down and baptized people in the Jordan with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2).

---

8) At the first Holy Ghost Gospel Revival meeting Peter stood up at Pentecost and said, “Repent, and be baptized (WATER) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy SPIRIT“ (Acts 2:38).

---

9) Peter also says “Baptism now saves you“ (1 Pet 3:18), and Paul is told “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16), and Paul writes that we are saved “by the washing of regeneration (WATER) and renewal in the Holy SPIRIT“ (Titus 3:5).

%between%Too bad many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists refuse to see it but the Bible is pretty clear about new birth through the sacrament of baptism. Jesus is not ambiguous in this matter and he is alluding quite clearly to new beginnings in the Old Testament. The Early Church is also very clear and so is the teaching of the Catholic Church today.

St. Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”

When someone asks me “Have you been born again?“ I simply answer “Absolutely, but I’ve been born again the Bible Way!“

This is amazing! Thank you so much for refuting me! God bless you sir. God bless

 

[AngloCatholic1]

IF sola scriptura was TRUE, then there would only be ONE protestant church!

The FACT that there are literally THOUSANDS of protestant churches, each preaching their own particular views on basic Christian matters, is ABSOLUTE PROOF that “scripture alone” is NOT ENOUGH. In fact, I think they’re at the point now where NOTHING can be taught at all.

Christ created ONE HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH. That’s why He revealed the hidden meanings to His parables to the inner twelve. That’s why He visited them after the resurrection and breathed out the Holy Spirit upon them. That’s why He sent THEM out into the world to proclaim His message. That’s why He said His Church would prevail… and sure enough, it’s the ONLY institution that HAS prevailed. Praise God!

What Christ did NOT do is sit down and write a book, and then just pass it out to enough people to guarantee that it would one day end up under glass in the Dallas Theological Seminary!

 

[Randy_Carson]

How do I view a .doc file?

.doc files are created by Microsoft Word.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is amazing! Thank you so much for refuting me! God bless you sir. God bless

Anytime. I’m always happy to help a brother in spiritual need. :tiphat:

 

[dj_dave]

This is amazing! Thank you so much for refuting me! God bless you sir. God bless

Does Christian water baptism result in forgiveness of sins? Maybe or…

1John 1:7: “If we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, ..*. the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” (Thus, not baptismal water but the blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin.)

Matt. 3:11: “I [John the Baptist] ... baptize you with water because of your repentance; but the one coming after me [Jesus Christ] is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not fit to take off.” (Verses 5,*6, also Acts 13:24, show that what John did was directed, not to all people, but to the Jews. Why? Because of the sins of the Jews against the Law covenant and to prepare them for Christ.)

Acts 2:38: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins.” (Did the baptism itself bring forgiveness to them? Consider: This was stated to Jews who shared responsibility for the death of Christ. [See verses 22,23.] Their baptism would give evidence of something. Of what? That they now put faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ. Only by their doing this could their sins be forgiven. [Acts 4:12 Acts 5:30-31 30The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom YOU slew, hanging him upon a stake. 31God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. Acts 22:16: “Rise, get baptized and wash your sins away by your calling upon his name.” (Also Acts 10:43)
30The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom YOU slew, hanging him upon a stake. 31God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins**.

(Acts 10:43) To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone putting faith in him gets forgiveness of sins through his name.”

Baptism is the OUTWARD SYMBLE of presenting of yourself to now do God’s will…that is why Jesus was baptized without sin. it was a fitting symbol of wholehearted dedication to God

more…Jesus was baptized although he “committed no sin.” (1Peter 2:22) Moreover, according to the Scriptures, remission of sins comes only through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Ananias urged Saul of Tarsus: “Rise, get baptized and wash your sins away by your calling upon [Jesus’] name.” (Acts 22:12-16) Yes, salvation is possible only by means of the shed blood of Jesus and by “calling upon his name” in faith.—Hebrews 9:22 again…(1 John 1:7) 7**However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

What, then, of Peter’s words at 1*Peter 3:21? There he says: “That which corresponds to this is also now saving you, namely, baptism, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the request made to God for a good conscience,) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Peter was comparing baptism to Noah’s experience of passing through the waters of the Flood. (Verse 20)

Noah, showing full faith in God, **built the ark **for the preservation of his family. (Hebrews 11:7) Similarly, by exercising faith in Jehovah God and **his provision **for salvation through Christ Jesus, people today can be saved from this present wicked world. They must also act on that faith. By repenting of sins, turning around from a wrong course, and making an unreserved dedication to Jehovah God in prayer, the request is made to God for a good conscience. But it is on the basis of Jesus’ sacrifice, and his resurrection by which he presented the value of that sacrifice to God in heaven, that sins are forgiven and salvation is possible.—1 Peter 3:22.

Why Jehovah in prayer? Ps 91:14