Thanks for the above contribution, Ronald. I believe that the question of Authority is pivotal so I’m somewhat surprised that it’s taken until now for it to be mentioned. Would you mind clarifying if your standard of truth is Sola Scriptura or SOLO Scriptura?
I understand that this might be radical if one is not ready for all of this so I just suggest easing into it by visiting the Muslim threads. Keep in mind that the words such as innocent, oppressor, sin, etc do not have the same meanings in Islam as it does for everyone else. It is how Muhammed defined them, but they don’t tell you that.Why not? He was simply showing respect.
Come back when you have read it and you will understand what I am saying.
I daresay all the modern popes have read the Qur’an. Have you read it?
I do not believe he has read it, if so then he would know what I do and kissing it would be the last thing I would do to it. One does not have to kiss such a thing in order to show respect to another’s religion. If this is respect then why didn’t they kiss the Bible? If they did - then show me and I will stop here.
Yes, I have read it and blog not only on this forum on Muslim threads, but am a group leader for Act for America, and blog on other threads concerning not only the Quran, but Islamic history (the bloody history of Jihad and its current history which includes the stealth jihad against the West, and its persecution of unbelievers past and present). And I also have read many of the hadiths, and too many books to mention on this thread concerning some aspect of Islam, Muhammed and its history.
Perhaps you’d care to explain why.
There are a number of reasons:
He threw in the OT and NT stories in hopes of converting the Jews and the Christians of his time. They did not ‘bite’ and so when he migrated to Medina he started his wars against them. And also the raids to get loot and slaves. He assasinated, tortured and killed. His abuse of children, not only his 9 year old wife (he was over 50), but also of the slave children. He told his followers to lie to gain the advantage over others so they could war on them. And he redefined sin. That is because doing anything to unbelievers is a-ok.
- one would find out that Muhammed was not a prophet of (a continuation of the line of prophets), or associated with Judaism and Christianity. He was a ‘wannabee’, he was a pagan who worshipped Allah at the Kabaa and the rites of Islam are from that pagan religion. And if he never obtained power he might not have committed the atrocities that he committed, but he did obtain power and personally, he did the opposite of what Jesus did when meeting the devil. Jesus turned the devil away when tempted with the world and all its riches, Muhammed took the devil up on his offer.
We find no real movement within Islam to change anything about it. In fact, we find that Muslim charities are to support Jihadists, their families, and old Jihadists (if they live), and the ones who do not want to fight are to give them moral support.
- one would find that those peaceful passages that are quoted so often to us and that they ‘forget’ to quote the passages that have abrogated those peaceful passages - the violent passages. (the Quran is a mish mash and in no discernable order so one has to really dig more into it to find out what passages were the abrogated.) The Muslims don’t tell us that those peaceful passages are weaker and the stronger, violent passages are indeed what are followed. Deception is a part of Islam - it even has an official name - taqiyya/kithman.
Islam is indeed a religion, but it is just as much a political movement, and an intrusion on every aspect of a Muslim’s life - even going to the bathroom has certain rules.
- one would find that us non-muslims are dehumanized. This is a strategy that preceeds Jihad (violence) if we do not accept Islam in a peaceful way - da’wa, and explains why sharia laws have no rights for the subjugated ones (oh yes, keep in mind that this is one of three options for unbelievers in Islam - death, conversion, or subjugation are the only options for peace in Islam.)
- one would find that it contradicts itself (abrogation), and contradicts the Bible which is another reason why there is nothing Judaic or Christian - ‘Abrahamic’ - about Islam. Muhammed was a pagan (he even included, at one point, three of Allah’s daughters from his pagan religion - but later said that the ‘devil made him do it’).
- I can go on and on with this. If you want to find out more about Islam visit the Muslim threads. You will find the usual excuses that Muslims use too to try to explain off the atrocities in Islam that are still going on such as slavery, women abuse, child abuse (in the form of slavery and even their own), the atrocious behavior of Muhammed, etc. It gets pretty interesting at times.
Respectfully,
Mick
Bob, I have prayed about this website, I have prayed whether or not I should be here sharing contrary ideas with Roman Catholic people. I do not yet have peace either way but I have asked God if there are sincere seeking folks on this site. I pray you may be one. I love Jesus Christ my personal Savior and I know I’m saved. It matter’s little to me that the Roman Catholic (a term I personally reject upon me) Church has “Anathamized” me and a priest from the parish I was raised of which I was an alter boy longer than any of my piers told me I was ex-Communicated from the church. I am yet not away that he had that authority to do so independantly or not. Fact is it doesn’t matter to me. I was saved December 20, 1978 by God’s mercy and grace alone. I have had theological training and received a bachelor’s degree in Theology. That said, I know it does not give credance to my words but I’ve said it because I am not an ignoramous concerning Catholicism and it’s teachings. Our Savior spoke these words in Luke (they are also in Matthew) 6:47-49, 47"Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great." I have posted many times on the forum, I have asked God for grace to do it in love without any ridicule of catholic people’s good intention. I believe in Sola Scriptura because everything else (in my opinion) is subjective. I have posted this on another forum question here and was labeled heresay by the Catholic reply. Fine, I am anchored in His Word alone. It has stood the test of time for millions of others and does so for me. Humanity is fallen, yes, that include all the Catholic priests, bishops and popes. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23. I place one thing alone outside that, it is the Rock, it is His Word. And no, I do not believe the Catholic church agrees with the Bible and also adds to it. I would ask that you would also pray for me, offenses do no good and I see too much hate here, yes, from both sides, and we can agree that is not good.
Sola, why did you ask that? Please I pray do not deal with symantics here. I have a great ability to make grammatical errors.Thanks for the above contribution, Ronald. I believe that the question of Authority is pivotal so I’m somewhat surprised that it’s taken until now for it to be mentioned. Would you mind clarifying if your standard of truth is Sola Scriptura or SOLO Scriptura?
Thoughtfully,
Mick
He asked it because there is no agreement on what Sola Scriptura is.
I agree with what Wikipedia says about it: Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
my friend it seems you have added to the SS the doctrine of sola scripture. did you not? sola scripture does not limit to only things that have been written down.
Dear Ronaldh: To help in our exchange, when you say, “the Bible”, what bible are you referencing? The King James or another? Also, you haven’t answered my question as to how the Bible which came from the Church be the foundation of the Church? There are as many “churches” as there are those who interpret the Word privately which is against St. Peter’s admonition, “Scripture is difficult and not for private interpretation.” “The unlearned twist Scripture to their own damnation.” Keep praying with me. In Christ, bob
Solo or sola. Which is it? Is it the Anabaptist/Evangelical notion of “solo” or the classical Protestant notion of “sola”?
Neither. Read his reply to me. Its the *Wikipedia *notion of Sola Scriptura.
Thanks for the above.SSTeacher;5194031:
I daresay all the modern popes have read the Qur’an. Have you read it?
I do not believe he has read it, if so then he would know what I do and kissing it would be the last thing I would do to it. One does not have to kiss such a thing in order to show respect to another’s religion. If this is respect then why didn’t they kiss the Bible? If they did - then show me and I will stop here.
Yes, I have read it and blog not only on this forum on Muslim threads, but am a group leader for Act for America, and blog on other threads concerning not only the Quran, but Islamic history (the bloody history of Jihad and its current history which includes the stealth jihad against the West, and its persecution of unbelievers past and present). And I also have read many of the hadiths, and too many books to mention on this thread concerning some aspect of Islam, Muhammed and its history.
Perhaps you’d care to explain why.
There are a number of reasons:
He threw in the OT and NT stories in hopes of converting the Jews and the Christians of his time. They did not ‘bite’ and so when he migrated to Medina he started his wars against them. And also the raids to get loot and slaves. He assasinated, tortured and killed. His abuse of children, not only his 9 year old wife (he was over 50), but also of the slave children. He told his followers to lie to gain the advantage over others so they could war on them. And he redefined sin. That is because doing anything to unbelievers is a-ok.
- one would find out that Muhammed was not a prophet of (a continuation of the line of prophets), or associated with Judaism and Christianity. He was a ‘wannabee’, he was a pagan who worshipped Allah at the Kabaa and the rites of Islam are from that pagan religion. And if he never obtained power he might not have committed the atrocities that he committed, but he did obtain power and personally, he did the opposite of what Jesus did when meeting the devil. Jesus turned the devil away when tempted with the world and all its riches, Muhammed took the devil up on his offer.
We find no real movement within Islam to change anything about it. In fact, we find that Muslim charities are to support Jihadists, their families, and old Jihadists (if they live), and the ones who do not want to fight are to give them moral support.
- one would find that those peaceful passages that are quoted so often to us and that they ‘forget’ to quote the passages that have abrogated those peaceful passages - the violent passages. (the Quran is a mish mash and in no discernable order so one has to really dig more into it to find out what passages were the abrogated.) The Muslims don’t tell us that those peaceful passages are weaker and the stronger, violent passages are indeed what are followed. Deception is a part of Islam - it even has an official name - taqiyya/kithman.
Islam is indeed a religion, but it is just as much a political movement, and an intrusion on every aspect of a Muslim’s life - even going to the bathroom has certain rules.
- one would find that us non-muslims are dehumanized. This is a strategy that preceeds Jihad (violence) if we do not accept Islam in a peaceful way - da’wa, and explains why sharia laws have no rights for the subjugated ones (oh yes, keep in mind that this is one of three options for unbelievers in Islam - death, conversion, or subjugation are the only options for peace in Islam.)
- one would find that it contradicts itself (abrogation), and contradicts the Bible which is another reason why there is nothing Judaic or Christian - ‘Abrahamic’ - about Islam. Muhammed was a pagan (he even included, at one point, three of Allah’s daughters from his pagan religion - but later said that the ‘devil made him do it’).
- I can go on and on with this. If you want to find out more about Islam visit the Muslim threads. You will find the usual excuses that Muslims use too to try to explain off the atrocities in Islam that are still going on such as slavery, women abuse, child abuse (in the form of slavery and even their own), the atrocious behavior of Muhammed, etc. It gets pretty interesting at times.
Respectfully,
Mick
I understand that this might be radical if one is not ready for all of this so I just suggest easing into it by visiting the Muslim threads. Keep in mind that the words such as innocent, oppressor, sin, etc do not have the same meanings in Islam as it does for everyone else. It is how Muhammed defined them, but they don’t tell you that.
The reason I asked is because there is a difference between what is sometimes termed Classic Sola Scriptura and SOLO Scriptura. The latter is the understanding of the Bible often found among Evangelicals. When I was an Evangelical, I was definitely a SOLO Scriptura advocate. I decided what I wanted to believe by reading the Bible for myself. I accepted no judgment or understanding as to what any verse or passage in the Bible meant except my own. I always had the final word. My stance was that I could interpret the Scriptures for myself without the aid of any church or Church, any tradition, or any historical factors.
Ahh, NOW I get it - SOLO as in flying SOLOThe reason I asked is because there is a difference between what is sometimes termed Classic Sola Scriptura and SOLO Scriptura. The latter is the understanding of the Bible often found among Evangelicals. When I was an Evangelical, I was definitely a SOLO Scriptura advocate. I decided what I wanted to believe by reading the Bible for myself. I accepted no judgment or understanding as to what any verse or passage in the Bible meant except my own. I always had the final word. My stance was that I could interpret the Scriptures for myself without the aid of any church or Church, any tradition, or any historical factors.
If you strongly identify with the approach I’ve described herein, it might be that you are actually a SOLO Scriptura guy and not a Sola Scriptura guy. I guess the best way to discover which you are is to ask yourself if you can define Classic Sola Scriptura. If the answer’s negative I’d have thought the chances that you’re a SOLO Scriptura guy are fairly good.
Biblically,
Mick
i believe it is who jesus is, what he has to offer, and how to recieve this offerIs it,
a) Disagreement as to whether salvation is an event or a process?
b) Disagreement about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
c) Disagreement about praying for the dead?
d) Disagreement about the existence of purgatory?
e) Disagreement about how to understand baptism?
f) Disagreement about the doctrine of Transubstantiation?
g) Disagreement about confession of one’s sins being heard by a priest?
h) Disagreement about the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God?
i) Disagreement about the papacy and papal infallibility?
j) Some other doctrine or factor?
Curiously,
Mick
Beautifully said!!! bob
Yes, that’s it. And I think the anti–Catholic sentiment often found among Evangelicals isn’t so much about Catholic doctrine as it is a reaction to the idea that the Catholic Church should presume to tell people what to do and then actually expect them to do it.Ahh, NOW I get it - SOLO as in flying SOLO
Mick,Yes, that’s it. And I think the anti–Catholic sentiment often found among Evangelicals isn’t so much about Catholic doctrine as it is a reaction to the idea that the Catholic Church should presume to tell people what to do and then actually expect them to do it.
Ecumenically,
Mick
I formally turned in my Evangelical I.D. on April 26, 2009, when I was accepted as a catechumen in the Orthodox Church of America. I had been wrestling with my spiritual difficulties and uncertainties since the end of 2005 so it was quite a long wrestling match.
I’d say it isn’t any different.
I think you’ve nailed it.
And I’d suggest that the average Evangelical is telling people to believe not what he or she has read in the Bible for himself or herself but what his or her pastor or Sunday school teacher has declared.God bless you, too.I know, over simplistic, but that’s me
thanks - just hope it opens someones mind - otherwise it’s meaningless words