Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
AMEN!
Sadly, Mark and his church (since Mark tells us he follows his church's teachings) disparage Paul and the veracity of Scripture...
Posted by MarkBsnr on April 24, 2010.
"How much of the NT was actually written by the individual whose name appears on the current Bible? Paul wrote as little as half of his purported letters; did Peter actually write either? Who wrote Matthew, Mark Luke and John? The only thing is that the Church has decreed that these are as they are presented." Posted by MarkBsnr on Wednesday, October 20, 2010"Paul definitely is not Trinitarian."
Check out Gamecock's homepage for similar comments from "well-catechized" Roman Catholics.
AMEN!
2,945 2,946 2,947.
Actually they're big numbers for phone booth cultists whose membership is declining as they die off. The first one you called to my attention is 2929.
Now, I've shown you where your skepticism was in error regarding aruanan's agreement that Luther did indeed hold to a belief in double predestintation.
Why not let aruanan speak? Are you afraid that your cover will be broken?
"Paul definitely is not Trinitarian." Posted by MarkBsnr on April 24, 2010.
Produce the Pauline writings that prove the Trinity. I have challenged the antiCatholics a number of times to do so and they have sadly failed.
Can you prove who wrote the Gospels? Or much of the NT? Come on - I challenged you guys then and challenge you now.
lol. Thanks for the additional quotes.
Not to mention that in this post upthread,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657209/posts?page=3117#3117
“I do not bring the OT writers into the fray. I mean that the NT writings for the most part do not even testify to the divinity of Jesus except for a few, somewhat. Most of them say or intimate that Jesus is a man, favoured of God, a super David. That’s part of the great insistence on the lineage, which doesn’t really work out - we’ve explored that one on two recent threads of which I believe that you were a participant.”
Mark is now telling us that Scripture doesn’t really quite testify to the divinity of Jesus, just a few verses in the NT, “somewhat”.
What does that make it then, another fabricated Catholic doctrine?
No problem. I really pray, however, that you will eventually be thankful for the actual Gospel. Until then, I fear that we shall contend. Unless you as a Calvinist are predestined to not believe in the Gospel of Jesus, but a different one - that Paul warned us about. Unless you believe in the Gospel of Jesus as the pinnacle of God's revelation to man, why then, what gives you the proof that you are Christian? I have asked this many times and never gotten any more than a fatuous answer.
Aruanan has spoken twice in two posts which I’ve given you. He/she can add whatever he/she wishes.
Once again, the Roman Catholic apologist demands proof that’s already been given.
And still they miss it.
2,945
2,946
2,947
On the contrary, they have been demonstrated many times. If you choose not to believe hem, nobody can help that.
Can you prove who wrote the Gospels? Or much of the NT? Come on - I challenged you guys then and challenge you now.
What are the traditions that were passed down to believers in the churches to which Paul wrote? How do you know what they were? How can you verify them?
I seem to remember providing verses where Paul taught the Trinity, but in case you missed it, here are a couple that come to mind:
1 Corinthians 12: 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Why do you Catholics hate Paul so?
Is it because he refutes Romanist heresy?
“The Tanakh was not authored by God. Neither (expressly) was Luke. Or Revelation. Now what do you have?”
What do I have? Apparently a conversation with someone who seems to say that God is not the source of scripture. Which means you are proving every point being put against you.
If THAT is representative of the Roman Catholic Church, no wonder so many categorize it as a cult.
And, it means I’m done with you as your heart is hardened against God’s truth. For that, I’m saddened. But I pray He will open your eyes and ears, soften your heart, and call you to belief.
Best wishes, FRiend. You need them.
Hoss
As for "solo" versus "sola," the former would require the Scriptures to be the only ecclesial authority, versus Scripture being the only infallible ecclesial authority and supreme formal rule of faith. (I myself wold not push the formal sufficiency too far. Though it is like a perfect food, yet it requires picking and digestion, etc., but it may be said to be formally sufficient.)
The former a rejects any aids to interpretation, such as commentary, history, ecumenical creeds, etc, and any authority of church Teaching Magisterium (TM) - perhaps like a Harold-2nd coming Camping - while the latter recognizes such means, but that all must be subject or answer to the Scriptures. Recommended but yet unread apologetic here.
Thinking this through, it may be argued that sola Scriptura effectively rejects the authority of the TM, but it no more does so than the fact that conditional submission to civil rulers negates their authority. What it does is disallow absolute or autocratic authority, and required obedience to rulings which rests upon such presumption rather than manifest Scriptural warrant and conformity.
While this allows for dissent and extremists - and thus the appeal of dictators or absolute monarchy - yet the fact that Christians can submit to civil rulers (even apart from the means of persuasion given them), and that far more Christians are unified in the basic core truths than dissent from them (and consider those that do to be heretics) shows that holding a document to be formally superior to that of men can work.
While this makes unity more difficult, (i would argue) it is of a higher quality than that which is either compelled or is by implicit trust in men.
Moreover, as the Scriptures substantiate, God has empowered the TM to dissuade unholy dissent. This is not done by physical power (though the state can punish physical acts of immorality), but spiritual, by both the passive means of dis-fellowship (Mt. 18:17; Rm. 16:17; 1Cor. 5:11,13; Titus 3:10) as well as binding a soul such as per 1Cor. 5:5. 1Tim. 1:20 and like use of the shepherds "rod," (1Cor. 4:21)
And as this is how the church is constituted to work it forces the true church to be that of their lioving God, with a gospel that produces transformative conversions and hearts full of worship and works led by the Spirit. Unlike the civil powers, Romans 13:3-4; Romans 13:3-4Pt. 2:13,14) being not constituted to wage war after the flesh (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 10:3-4; 2 Corinthians 6:6-7; Ephesians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 5:12) the church must do so by the Spirit, and the lack of the latter is often evidenced by quest for the former.
The authority of the apostles was not established by self-proclamation but by spiritual virtue and power, and the greater the claim to authority the more such is needed, versus self-promotion, For the kingdom of God is not in word [mans say-so], but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:20) And i certainly need to seek more purity, passion and power, and daily so.
The Tanakh was not authored by God. Neither (expressly) was Luke. Or Revelation. Now what do you have?
Apparently an admission that the Catholic church doesn't use Scripture as its authority and nothing from God to point to with which to support the papacy, apostolic succession, the priesthood, the establishment of the Catholic church, the Eucharist, and everything else we know about God.
Just what DO you believe is authoritative in regard to knowing God?
The Tanakh was not authored by God. Neither (expressly) was Luke. Or Revelation. Now what do you have?
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say,....?
Well, at least we now know how you feel about Chauvinism (the Male kind, anyway).
Amen to God's wisdom. Yours, not so much.
Seems logical and pretty obvious.
“What does God-breathed mean?”
Was that intended to be taken as a rhetorical question or is the rather obvious answer expected?
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
I don’t know. I have no clue what the person who asked it was thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.