- Status
R
rinnie
Guest
Now Now my wonderful Brothers and Sisters in Christ lets let Ed have a shot at it first.
BY the way I meant zip it not sip it. Oh Well, But see, that helps us prove a point does it not. When I wrote that I ASSUMED that you would understand that I knew you knew the scripture but wanted Ed to show us what you guys showed me.
Sounds like you did not have the infallibility to interpret my sentence did ya. Just kidding guys. But really had to prove a point.
D
DD2007
Guest
When an apostle or a prophet isn’t present (they have all passed away) the teachings of every man can only be verified as true by checking them for accuracy against scripture, which was inspired by the Holy Spirit and delivered to the people of God by the prophets and apostles to contain the gospel truth that the Church is the pillar and foundation of.
So, scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice. Sola Scriptura.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
DD I hate to be the one to tell you but you have not had a legitimate asnwer from day one,you are a Cathloic bigot .
D
DD2007
Guest
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.
Ephesians 2:19-20 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,
1 Peter 2:9 ESV
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
H
humblelurker
Guest
D
DD2007
Guest
You can attack me all you want, and you have wasted much of your time doing so while the text stands and proves scripture is sufficient by what is says.
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.
It is amazing that you guys can’t understand the simple sentance above inspired by God.
M
MrS
Guest
off topic…
But the wording/presentation of your argument just reminded me of the commercial for Cheez-It
youtube.com/watch?v=nQsObzDsYd8
youtube.com/watch?v=pRw3OB102ro&feature=related
You know, how can SS be even remotely true.
Well,
- take things out of context
- ignore conflicting verses
- bypass Christ given authority for man-made inventions
- succumb to personal wants in favor of the difficulties of following Christ
Cheez-Its !!!
thanks DD
.
D
DD2007
Guest
The writings are all thinngs written, dictated, or approved by the apostles and prophets as Holy Scripture.
Here is where Luke probably came in:
Luke 10:1 ESV
10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.
M
MrS
Guest
The attacks are not on you DD.
Your position is untenable.
Your position is unbiblical.
Your position is un-historical.
Your position has been refuted for nearly 20 centuries. Only those who wish to have a more “easy-believe-ism” in their lives still hold to it.
Don’t take it personal, but it is your position which keeps you from the Truth.
.
C
Convert66
Guest
DD,
You are still being evasive. The Scriptures, in the same letter (II Timothy–before the passage on Scripture, I might add) says that purity (2:21) is sufficient to make the man of God complete unto every good work. This was your argument for 3:16-17. That the Scriptures alone are complete to make the man of God competent for every good work. So by the Scriptures alone we are faced with the dilemma, since Paul, inspired by the HS says in the same letter that both Scripture and purity are sufficient to make the man of God complete unto every good work.
Given this fact, why do you not argue rather for purity alone, or is it Scripture AND Purity, prayer, steadfastness, etc., as the Scriptures also say?
This is precisely the dilemma faced when using Scripture alone. We are faced with innumerable contradictions that must be reconciled by proper interpretation. A simple reading by simply anyone who professes faith in Christ (after all the Gnostics professed faith in Christ) is not sufficient to dispel them. This fact argues against Scripture alone.
***Edited to add::
You are claiming that you interpret properly because you are called and chosen? Explain.
Again, you claim that the hermeneutic which you allege supports your reliance upon II Tim. 3:16-17 for SS is the same hermeneutic that the CC and Luther used to justify the Real presence in the Eucharist, but you, a called and chosen holy nation unto yourself, using the same hermeneutic deny the Real Presence?
And you still haven’t dealt with the meanings of “all scripture” which is pasa graphe and this means any single passage would be sufficient to equip us unto every good work according to your understanding of II Tim. 3:16-17.
You are sinking deeper, DD.
You are still being evasive. The Scriptures, in the same letter (II Timothy–before the passage on Scripture, I might add) says that purity (2:21) is sufficient to make the man of God complete unto every good work. This was your argument for 3:16-17. That the Scriptures alone are complete to make the man of God competent for every good work. So by the Scriptures alone we are faced with the dilemma, since Paul, inspired by the HS says in the same letter that both Scripture and purity are sufficient to make the man of God complete unto every good work.
Given this fact, why do you not argue rather for purity alone, or is it Scripture AND Purity, prayer, steadfastness, etc., as the Scriptures also say?
This is precisely the dilemma faced when using Scripture alone. We are faced with innumerable contradictions that must be reconciled by proper interpretation. A simple reading by simply anyone who professes faith in Christ (after all the Gnostics professed faith in Christ) is not sufficient to dispel them. This fact argues against Scripture alone.
***Edited to add::
You are claiming that you interpret properly because you are called and chosen? Explain.
Again, you claim that the hermeneutic which you allege supports your reliance upon II Tim. 3:16-17 for SS is the same hermeneutic that the CC and Luther used to justify the Real presence in the Eucharist, but you, a called and chosen holy nation unto yourself, using the same hermeneutic deny the Real Presence?
And you still haven’t dealt with the meanings of “all scripture” which is pasa graphe and this means any single passage would be sufficient to equip us unto every good work according to your understanding of II Tim. 3:16-17.
You are sinking deeper, DD.
H
humblelurker
Guest
But that’s not what Ephesians 2:20 says. Luke was neither an Apostle nor a Prophet according to scripture that I can find. Please explain.
M
MrS
Guest
not even close… now that statement of yours just adds to the loss of credibility on your part.
Again… the Eucharist is a Truth which IS supported by all the verses in The Book of the Catholic Church (the Bible)… which is supported by historical facts… which is presented in context
It is only denied by those who “walked away” … then and now.
If you think about it, Jesus let them walk away because He had made His Words clear, and they chose not to believe.
Same goes for you.
.
H
humblelurker
Guest
I don’t see “All Scripture alone” in the above passage?
R
rinnie
Guest
Lets start with 1Peter 2:9 What does Jesus saying that Christians by worshiping God in Christ make us a chosen race have to do with having the Power of the HOly Spirit to define scripture?
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
DD, I think I can help you , you are eating to many chezz-it and listing to to much Masarthur. Cut down on the Chezz-it and stay away from Macarthur he will lead you to hill
L
Lapey
Guest
I am guessing you meant 1 Thessalonians and the “rapture” verses?
Can’t you see the reason historical criticism is so crucial when reading apocalyptic writings such as these? The rapture, unless I am really mistaken, is an interpretation of scripture in a “prophetic writting” sense that only has a history of a century of two? By the way to subscribe to this theory, only my opinion here, is contrary to sola scriptura, because Jesus clearly states in scripture that no one knows except the Father, except for John Hagee and others who follow the rapture doctrine. Scripture cannot contradict itself.
I know none of us have read and studied all of the Early Church Father’s writings, but am I not right in saying that almost all of the theologians who have done what you describe been reformation or Protestant in background? If so, why does that concern a cradle Catholic like me? I know, that sounds a little closed minded.
If I believe in the “one, holy, Catholic’ and Apostolic Church”, then I believe what the Catholic writers of these documents believed. So I guess that is why I don’t agree with your premise of the differing meanings of exegesis (agree to disagree). If the teaching is outside of the Church then I suspect it as being possibly made in error.
The only reason I repeatedly brought up this topic is the fact that I was discussing this with DD2007 when you joined, that’s it.
The scripture that DD continues to regurgitate as a stand alone teaching of scripture is at fault if used alone. Other statements of Paul refute this statement if it is taken in a strict literal sense as presented by DD; such as 2 Thess 2:15,
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
Don’t the two statements, 2 Thess 2:15 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 contradict each other if you follow the sola scriptura tradition? This is not a new argument to this thread, just overlooked and ignored by DD.
(14) “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, (15) and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (16) All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
Stating that the first quote is true and the second is as well would be a contradictory statement for a believer of the sola scriptura tradition. How does one reconcile the conflict? DD2007, answer please!
I believe they are in no way contradictory.
I guess that’s why I am so adamant about exegesis. If one is honestly looking to see what the word of God says and means to the universal Christian church, then you have to know what the writer was facing when the piece was written, i.e. time setting. But most of all, there has to be an understanding of what the representatives of the group, in this case the Catholic Church, who wrote the piece.
If that makes my view narrow minded or closed to “reformed theological” opinions, I’m guilty.
Edwin,
Sorry I haven’t been posting, I had classes this weekend, yes with a liberal professor. It was very painful!!!
J
jayk15
Guest
St Paul was referring to the Torah(Old Testament) in that verse. The full Bible as we know it(with the New Testament) wasn’t even compiled till over 300 years afterwards. That verse doesn’t say that Scripture is the only source of Divine Revelation. What would’ve happened to the Christians before the Bible was compiled and it would’ve taken a further 1000 years for the printing press to be developed. Clearly people had to rely on the Oral Apostolic tradition. The Divine Revelation that came to us through the Church.
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to
behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living
God, the pillar and ground of the truth
May the Peace of Crist be with you
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to
behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living
God, the pillar and ground of the truth
May the Peace of Crist be with you
R
rinnie
Guest
This is where Luke PROBALLY came in? How a about this. Can you explain this to me?
The bishops fo the Church as successors of the apostles with the Pope as their head form a single college CCC880. They continue to lead the church in an unbroken chain that leads straight back to the 12.
The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the 12 with Peter as their head. Mk 3:14-15.
Representing the 12 tribes of Israel they ar ethe foundation stones of the New Jerusalem Mt 9:28 Lk 22-30 rv 21:12-14
The 12 and the other disciples share in Christ mission and HIS POWER but also in his lot Mk6:7 lk 10:1-2 Mt 10:25 Jn 15:f20. By all his actions CHRIST PREPARES AND BUILDS HIS CHURCH. CCC 765
Why is it that Peter decieded that the apostles must replace Judas with Matthias.
Why is it that Peter who was the one who defended the Christians before the Sanhedrin
Why did Peter the one who made the decison against circumcision at the council of Jerusalem?
Why was Peter the one who founded the Church in Rome the Capital of the civilized world.
The Apostles accepted the position of Peter. Today the successor of Peter the Pope continues to lead and defend the church as among the bishops and successors of the Apostles.
Why is the CC the only church to have Holy Orders
THe sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by the laying on of hands by a solemn prayer of consecration asking God to grant the ordianand the Graces of the HS REQUIRED for his ministry. Ordination imprints an indelible sacramental charcter. CCC 1597.
- Status