Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Book Review: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura
Vivificat - from Contemplation to Action ^ | July 3, 2012 | TDJ

Posted on 07/03/2012 9:31:36 AM PDT by Teófilo

Another nail in the coffin of the foundational Protestant dogma

Sola scriptura is dead, or at least is undead, a zombie still stalking the darkened hallways of Protestantism. Many well-meaning Protestant Christians don’t see the zombie-dogma for what it is; instead, they choose to see it as a being of light. My friend Dave Armstrong has returned to blow the old decrepit sola scriptura monsters one at a time in his latest work, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura.

Let’s recall the definition of the sola scriptura dogma – yes, it is a dogma – as understood by Norman Geisler, a recognized Protestant authority Dave quotes in his work:

By sola scriptura orthodox Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)… (p.16)
Geisler, and other authorities Dave quotes, further explain that other authorities exist, but that these are of secondary importance. Geisler also defends what he calls the perspicuity of Holy Writ, which means that anyone can understand the basic truths of Scripture: the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things, Geisler states. (p.17). As a true analyst, Dave separated the sola scriptura dogma into its constituents claims, found out its contents, examined its individual parts, and studied the structure of sola scriptura as whole. He found them defective and insufficient to expound and explain the full spectrum of Christian claims.

Dave kills the sola scriptura zombie by selecting 100 verses from Scripture contradicting this central Protestant claim. I guess he selected 100 verses because the number “100” gives the reader a sense of exhaustive answer and completion, not because there are only 100 verses that should make all sincere Protestant Christian at least uncomfortable with the teaching. In fact, Dave is the author of another related work, 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?, which is useful if you need another 401 arguments to kill the sola scriptura zombie dead.

100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura. is a distillation of the 501 Biblical Arguments… in a more manageable, less overwhelming fashion for the beginning reader. It’s 133 pages in length and divided into two parts. In Part 1 Dave discusses the binding authority of Tradition, as substantiated in Scripture, and in Part 2 he discusses the binding authority of the Church, again from Scripture. The result must be uncontestable to the sincere Protestant Christian as well as eye opening to the full range of deeds and wonders the Incarnation of the Word of God brought to history.Will the sola scriptura zombie really die after Dave’s work? This is a senseless question because the zombie is already dead. It’s kept ambulating by strings pulled from the most diehard of its followers. Those strings must be cut by the individual, sincere Protestant Christian himself. Dave Armstrong’s work, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura. not only blows the zombie of sola scriptura away, he also provides the truth-searcher with the scissors to cut off the strings.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500501-503 next last
To: D-fendr

First, “real presence” is subject to multiple interpretations. You need to narrow that down. Some of my Catholic friends seem to think it uniformly means corporeal presence of the kind found only in transubstantiation. But as I have pointed out elsewhere, God is spirit, and He is real, so “spiritual presence” is just as real, and would get closer to what non-transubstantiationists actually mean when they speak of “real presence.”

But since it’s your question, and I don’t know if you’ve accounted for the ambiguity, I suppose I could wait for a clarification.

As for “symbol” interpretations, I think you might be talking about supposedly pure Zwinglian memorialism (or not, I can’t really tell). However, based on my experience with both “spiritual presence” and “memorialist” churches, I doubt if there even is such a thing as a bare memorialist. Everyone who takes the Bible seriously takes the Lord’s Supper seriously, as a special conduit of the blessing and grace of God in Christ, as well as a certain fearful appreciation of the danger of participating unworthily. That’s not really bare memorialism. There are even indications Zwingli himself was not so wooden in the matter as his detractors would make him out to be.

But, because “symbol” or “figure” or “representation” beliefs are not at all inconsistent with spiritual presence, are supported by the language of Scripture, and even appear regularly in many of the fathers, such as Tertullian and Augustine, I would say there is warrant for both. But the details are important, as there is much Biblical guidance to consider. A thing should be as simple as it can be, but no simpler.


401 posted on 07/04/2012 2:23:34 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Thanks...

You are welcome, don't have all the answers, but got hammered on this subject awhile back, learned not to trust my HS Latin and to look it up instead.

402 posted on 07/04/2012 2:26:51 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: verga

There was broad consensus, often before 100 A.D., among the early Christians as to which books were inspired and which ones were not. It would be hundreds of years later before there was anything resembling the Roman Catholic Church that we know today.


403 posted on 07/04/2012 2:34:33 PM PDT by .45 Long Colt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: .45 Long Colt

“There was broad consensus, often before 100 A.D., among the early Christians as to which books were inspired and which ones were not. It would be hundreds of years later before there was anything resembling the Roman Catholic Church that we know today.”


Do any Catholics even recognize how long the church spent just trying to keep from getting fed to lions? The Catholic church didn’t spring up the day Jesus rose again.
And Paul came along well after that, yet the book of Acts doesn’t read like a Catholic church. Mary doesn’t have any role in the bible that I’m aware of after the day of Pentecost.


404 posted on 07/04/2012 2:40:38 PM PDT by LevinFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: LevinFan

I think the vast majority of Catholics are ignorant of both the Bible and Christian history. Those that know anything simply spout the usual Roman Catholic myths. Unfortunately they haven’t just bought into Catholic myth about history, they have bought the huge soul-damning lies regarding justification. The default position of mankind is to want to work his way to heaven. Men want to DO something to make themselves better and Catholicism plays into that desire.

But salvation is by grace, through faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast. Salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. He is the author and finisher of my faith. Catholics want to add their own merit. They don’t understand that they possess no merit and cannot acquire any because they are sons of Adam. The only merit that saves is the merit found in Christ and His perfect rightousness imputed to the account of sinners. My sin was laid on Him and His rightousness was laid on me. What mercy and grace!

I pray the Lord will be gracious to open eyes and heal hearts!


405 posted on 07/04/2012 3:01:33 PM PDT by .45 Long Colt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: .45 Long Colt

Look at the responses to those of us who read the Word of God, and base our faith on whether something lines up with it. We’re told we worship a book, while they follow the words of men alone. They act like we were reading some pagan book.
And the bible makes it clear they looked to scripture daily. Most of us would be ashamed of ourselves if we compared our time in the scripture to theirs.

Man’s natural inclination isn’t really to better himself. Man’s natural inclination is to pride. That is what cause to original fall of man. What they want is an easy way to get in, that still lets them thump their chest at earning it.
But remember that not all Catholics are that way, and many Protestants are just as big a chest thumping.

A preacher once said that the reason God wants salvation to be purely a gift is that God wouldn’t be able to stand eternity with people boasting of what they’d ‘earned’
Could you blame Him for that? It would be like listening to some amateur drummer for eternity. I’d go nuts.


406 posted on 07/04/2012 3:15:57 PM PDT by LevinFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: LevinFan

I couldn’t agree more.


407 posted on 07/04/2012 3:27:21 PM PDT by .45 Long Colt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Thanks for your reply.

I would define 'real presence' as 'this is my body.' As opposed to not real presence being, 'this represents' or 'this is a symbol of'.

The real presence is the meaning of the scripture, as taught by the Apostolic Church to this day and in all extant records.

I appreciate that you point out that 'spiritual' does mean 'not real' or 'not existing in reality.' Many do not see this.

We might agree that, at some point, words and reason - and science - fall short in this sphere of knowledge. Transubstantiation, to me, merely states that there is a difference between substance and accidents and applies it to the Holy Eucharist.

For an analogy, I think I could safely say that you are not the same person, substantially, that you were before your conversion. However, this difference in substance is not detectable by the senses alone or their extensions.

Most clearly, "real presence' means 'this *is* my body' is truth, that's all we need to know and acknowledge of this aspect of Holy Eucharist. Of course, C.S. Lewis put it better: ""The command, after all, was 'Take and eat,' NOT take and understand."

As for Zwingli and Luther, I think this might be a good place to post a bit of Luther's response in his "That these words of Christ, ‘This is my body’, etc., still stand firm against the fanatics." It is also interesting the context of the dogma of sola scriptura. What follows is from this work:

"But listen, I ask you, how they remove our interpretation from this saying of Christ and bring in their own. They say, ‘The word “is” must mean the same as the word “represents”’, as Zwingli writes; and the expression ‘my body’ must mean the same as the expression ‘sign of my body’, as Oecolampadius writes. So Christ’s Word and meaning according to Zwingli’s text would read ‘Take, eat; this represents my body’ or according to Oecolampadius’ text, ‘Take and eat; this is a sign of my body.’... Then at once they boast that we have no passage from scripture which says that Christ’s body is in the Supper...

"Whoever read the scriptures that ‘body’ means the same as ‘sign of the body’, and ‘is’ means the same as ‘represents’? Indeed, what language in all the world has ever expressed itself so?"


408 posted on 07/04/2012 4:41:26 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Luther's response //"Whoever read the scriptures that ‘body’ means the same as ‘sign of the body’, and ‘is’ means the same as ‘represents’? Indeed, what language in all the world has ever expressed itself so?"

It is indeed interesting in relation to Sola Scriptura, and although it is only Wednesday, thank you for the use of Luther as a reference. But again, it is Independence Day.

409 posted on 07/04/2012 5:19:48 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
"I love your spirit, bro, but there’s no lexical basis for granting epiousion (“daily”) in Matt 6:11 any special status as a word expressing arcane Aristotelian categories of substance versus accidence."

If you are overly concerned with arcane Aristotelian concepts you ought to reject St . John’s use of the word Logos too. The word Epiousious is a hapax legomenon and was never used before Matthew 6:11 and is used in no other context in Greek literature. Had Jesus meant simply bread He would have said “artos”.

While it is good to look to the Early Church Fathers guidance in determining what was meant by the Gospels citing a single writing of a single Early Church Father is not conclusive proof. Rest assured that St. John Chrysostom did believe in the Real Presence. Here is but one example from one of his homilies:

“We behold in the Eucharist the one who is beheld in heaven.

Christ gave his flesh to eat in order to deepen our love for him. When we approach him there should be a burning within us a fire of live and longing. This food strengthens us; it emboldens us to speak freely to our God; it is our hope, our salvation, our light and our life. If we go to the next world fortified by this sacrifice we shall enter sacred portals with perfect confidence, as though protected all over by armor of gold.”

“But why do I speak of the next world? Because of this sacrament earth becomes heaven for you. Throw open the gates of heaven – or rather, not heaven, but of heaven of heavens-look through and you will see proof of what I say. What is heaven’s most precious possession? I will show you it here on earth. I do not show you archangels, heaven or the heaven of heavens, but I show you the very Lord of all these. Do you not see how you gaze, here on earth, upon what is most precious of all? You not only gaze on it but touch it as well. You not only touch it, but even eat it and take away with you to your homes. It is essential therefore when you wish to deceive this sacrament you cleanse your soul from sin and to prepare your mind.”

Additionally, many of St. John Chrysostom’s contemporaries taught similarly:

"Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. The bread which is of the common sort is not supersubstantial. But the Bread which is holy, that Bread is supersubstantial, as if to say, directed toward the substance of the soul. This Bread does not go into the belly, to be cast out into the privy. Rather, it is distributed through your whole system, for the benefit of body and soul." – St. Cyril of Jerusalem

"He (Jesus) called it bread indeed, but He called it epiousion, that is, supersubstantial. It is not the bread that passes into the body but that bread of eternal life, which sustains the substance of our souls. Therefore, in Greek it is called epiousios." St. Ambrose -Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397

“”If Jesus Christ, yielding to your prayer, grants me the favor and it is His will, I shall, in the subsequent letter which I intend to write to you, still further explain the dispensation which I have here only touched upon, regarding the New Man Jesus Christ--a dispensation founded on faith in Him and love for Him, on His Passion and Resurrection. I will do so especially if the Lord should reveal to me that you--the entire community of you!--are in the habit, through grace derived from the Name, of meeting in common, animated by one faith and in union with Jesus Christ--who in the flesh was of the line of David, the Son of Man and the Son of God--of meeting, I say, to show obedience with undivided mind to the bishop and the presbytery, and to break the same Bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, and everlasting life in Jesus Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch

If you study the writings and teachings of the Early Church Fathers that immediately followed the Apostles and those that preceded St. John Chrysostom you will find that they all unanimously believed in the Real Presence

Peace be with you.

410 posted on 07/04/2012 6:56:56 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

And thank you for your response. It was cordial and thoughtful.

I would only offer a few, hopefully not too controversial responses.

The only problem with your definition of real presence is that it still blends some categories that should probably be distinct. One of the reasons I like to use the word corporeal is to distinguish between two kinds of real. We know that physical reality is what a materialist regards as real, period.

But a Christian subscribes, by definition, to two realities, the physical and the spiritual. Unfortunately, due to the biases of sinful human imagination, we tend to think of physical reality as more real than the spiritual realm, full as it is of ghosts and half-dreamed dreams. But as CS Lewis loved to point out, there is every reason to suspect that the spiritual realm is more real than we are, that we are the phantoms and spirituality has the solid stuff.

Therefore, to keep things clear, I think is it necessary to distinguish between a real presence that connotes corporeality, as in transubstantiation, versus a presence that is just as real, but is not materialistic, but all of the spirit, hence “spiritual presence.” This view, though anathema to Trent, gives a reasonable accounting for the unmistakable language of metaphor in both Scripture and the fathers, while also protecting the Christian from falling into reliance on priestly intermediaries or the temptation to give worship to mere signs and figures, which worship Jesus said should be reserved to God who is a spirit, and is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, not in place.

Nevertheless, here’s looking forward to that time when all our childish attempts at understanding are set aside for better things.

Peace,

SR


411 posted on 07/04/2012 9:18:43 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: xone
"A penchant for picking the wrong person much?"

Penchant for looking at the world as if it's all about you?

A generalization about a clearly identified group you apparently don't consider yourself to be a part of obviously doesn't apply to you. Unless, of course, you're equally fond of being free to murder infants if it gets in the way of your self-gratification the same way millions of folks routinely do whether they claim to be Christian or not. In which case it's only natural for a dog that's bitten to yelp.

Sorry, but it's not "all about you". If it were, I'd have sent you an email like the half dozen cowards who sent me emails because they couldn't argue the point without using language that the RM would delete and probably even ban them for using.

Thanks for the little note, TTFN and don't get your head stuck in any Homey Jars.

have a nice day

412 posted on 07/04/2012 9:34:17 PM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Thanks very much. I think we understand each other's views.

There's only one other that I think you bring up:

protecting the Christian from falling into reliance on priestly intermediaries

The Sacraments through His Church are one of means of Christ for dispensing grace. The Sacramental Life of His Church is an immeasurable gift worthy of more gratitude from me with each passing year - rather than something I wish to be protected against.

We differ here, but I wanted to give the other side.

thanks again...

413 posted on 07/04/2012 11:00:20 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
Nope, I know this. If you take scripture ALONE without any other discussions with others or reading of commentaries, you have the wide varieties of fundamental differences.

As I asked you: What is your stand on:

  1. something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching) -- all three use scripture alone to justify their points of view and have three diverge in their points of view
  2. he REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (as your post said)?
  3. talking in tongues -- does one HAVE to talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
  4. and the episcopate (bishops etc.) -- some who have scripture alone have it, some don't
  5. Do you read in scripture alone whether Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
  6. God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)
  7. Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
  8. agree or disagree with soul sleep?
  9. worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
  10. agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
  11. and spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
  12. "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
  13. Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
  14. do you read that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
  15. is baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
  16. imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

414 posted on 07/04/2012 11:08:23 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
It's been pretty consistent -- the Apostolic Church as a whole (Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians) -- i'll even add in confessional, conservative Lutherans, Anglicans etc. who stick close to orthodoxy.

The celebration of divine liturgy/mass and the beliefs as encapsulated in the Creed are consistent from the beginnings.

More critically, when there were differences, the solution is not to hive off but to sit together and pray as a community.

415 posted on 07/04/2012 11:11:04 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: LevinFan
Regarding the concept of speaking in tongues:

Here's some more on what Calvinists from their own doctrinal opc website say about the Pentecostals and you compare it to what Catholics say

OrthodoPresbyterianC doctrine

Catholic doctrine

  • It will be noted that the Confession sharply contradicts the view popularized today by the neo-Pentecostal movement.
  • In essence this view would have us believe that we can have the same charismatic gifts that we read about in the age of the Apostles - such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing - today.
  • This is a very serious error. In essence it is a result of a failure to grasp the Biblical teaching concerning the history of salvation.
  • Never again will there be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit such as took place on the day of Pentecost.
  • The sending of the Holy Spirit is just as much an unrepeatable event as the birth of Christ was.

Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 

 

Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church


416 posted on 07/04/2012 11:17:46 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

“because your task, “ —> attempted and failed attempt at mind-reading and also making it personal, against Forum rules


417 posted on 07/04/2012 11:19:46 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
So, do you believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? you state that I already told you that “real” and “spiritual” presence are functionally equivalent, --> so do you take that to mean that the Eucharist is both the body of Christ and bread?
418 posted on 07/04/2012 11:20:48 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
That statement is itself an INTERPRETATION — YOUR interpretation

Nope. Firstly, it's not just mine but that handed down by generations

Secondly, the facts are that the beliefs on the nature of Christ etc. are as handed down from Apostolic times, the celebration of the mass is as in Didache etc.

419 posted on 07/04/2012 11:22:00 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012; Tao Yin; .45 Long Colt; BipolarBob; Springfield Reformer; Nervous Tick
Kosher is not scriptural but is merely a tradition....Circumcision on the other hand is a commandment,

Ok, thanks for clarification on your position that circumcision is a commandment that all Christians should adhere to.

420 posted on 07/04/2012 11:24:05 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012; Tao Yin; .45 Long Colt; BipolarBob; Springfield Reformer; Nervous Tick
“Shekinah” — so do you mean that Jesus was just a resting place for God? Just a vessel?

Ok, so the body or figure of a man on whom God's spirit dwelt until the cross?

421 posted on 07/04/2012 11:25:26 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
well, we've had disputes about the exact number.

I do admit that I'm troubled by some factionalism -- I'll take the Lutheran point of view for instance. Of course the ELCA is no longer Lutheran, but the conservative groups like WELS or LCMS should, in my humble, outsider's perspective, no longer be separate acronyms but one conservative Lutheran Church. Let individual parishes keep their own administration but the basic tenets are to be locked, unviolable. Dividing up conservative forces makes it easier for us to get picked on one by one

422 posted on 07/04/2012 11:29:27 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
We have been since the coming of the Christ Agreed and agree with you on the rest of your post.
423 posted on 07/04/2012 11:30:30 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: .45 Long Colt
.45 --> "I know extent of the claim to infallibility"

But you got it wrong when your post called the pope infallible. Papal infallibility has nothing to do with the fallibilty of the person itself holding that office — who is a fallible being. P.i. is specifically that on matters of doctrine, when pronouncing a decision on matters and only when spoken with the authority invested in the chair of Peter, under the grace of God and thanks to the Holy Spirit — only that decision is infallible.

I humbly submit that you did not correctly state what papal infallibility is

424 posted on 07/04/2012 11:32:36 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: .45 Long Colt; Rashputin; Natural Law
.45 --> " See if the claims of Rome are in line with the Word"

i have, and they are. Again, don't assume that Catholics don't read the written Word of God and worship with The Word -- Jesus Christ.

Also, your two statements are in opposition to each other, if you say that "I have studied" and at the same time say " Resting on the teachings of" -- your first statement is wrong

The Church rests on the Word of God -- Jesus Christ. All the rest are commentaries or elaborations on the Word.

I again submit that you have not adequately studied the Church.

425 posted on 07/04/2012 11:36:01 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Go back to reading the Kroan.


426 posted on 07/04/2012 11:40:13 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: .45 Long Colt; verga
.45, you are jumping topic. Let's review. you said in post 85 claiming that Roman Catholics gave us the Bible.

to which verga asked you So where did the Bible come from? Who decided that Matthew was in and the Gosple of Peter was out? Who decided that Philemon was in and the Didache was out?

Hint Councils of Hippo and Carthage 393 and 397 respectively.

your statement There was broad consensus, often before 100 A.D., among the early Christians as to which books were inspired and which ones were not is incorrect -- because for instance the Revelation of John was right until the 300s rejected by most communities as non-inspired. The Georgian Orthodox Church doesn't include it in its canon

the question still holds -- "And how do you know what’s authentic Scripture and what isn’t?" on what basis would you say that the Shepherd of Hermes is not to be added in? And also note that Luther called the Epistle of St. James as the epistle of straw and, also Jewish canon was only closed in AD 70 -- yes, 40 odd years after Christ's death,

Marcion ws the first to put together a Biblical canon: This included 10 epistles from St. Paul, as well as a version of the Gospel of Luke, which today is known as the Gospel of Marcion.

Or, Origen of Alexandria whose canon include all of the books in the current Catholic canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John but included the Shepherd of Hermas

so how do you know that the list of inerrant books you have is complete or contains extra books?

As verga told you, this was due to the Holy Spirit acting in the councils of the Church.

So, while "Roman Catholics" as in verga and me from the 21st century :) didn't give you the Bible, the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, under the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit DID collect together and define the books that form canon

427 posted on 07/04/2012 11:50:30 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: LevinFan
"And Paul came along well after that, yet the book of Acts doesn’t read like a Catholic church."

Actually, it does. Note that the bit about Mary you bring up -- during the Mass where the High Priest is Jesus Christ, Mary is mentioned but once -- during the Creed.

In the Acts chapter one, one sees the start of Apostolic succession where Matthias is added to the 12 (or rather to the 11)

In chapter 2 one sees the spreading of Christianity beyond it's Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek language boundaries

In chapter 3 we see Peter in the name of Jesus Christ performing a miracle - and a miracle can only be performed in the name of God

so on, it takes about "And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people" (Acts 5:12).

Later you read about the Grecian Jews saying that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration and the first appointment of Deacons -- just as we have in the Church today

You see Peter through the book of Acts as a person who, yes, inspite of himself is leading the way forward. He doesn't understand it, but God leads through Him -- from the baptism of the first gentile to the signs of the eating of erstwhile forbidden food.

And we see that in the Church where the only explanation for this role to continue is that God's grace is on it, nothing else. This is inspite of the few corrupt and even fewer incredibly corrupt men who have filled it.

in Acts 1:8 we see Jesus declaring that the Apostles should receive power when the Holy Ghost should come upon them, and should be His witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth

The Church developed according to the plan conceived by Christ. Christ's great plan of the Church comes to fruition in Acts

Isn't it strange the the end of Acts (chapter 28) is in Rome? Jesus in Acts 1:8 says to take his message to the "ends of the earth" -- to Rome?

428 posted on 07/05/2012 12:03:58 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: LevinFan
The Church developed according to the plan conceived by Christ. Christ's great plan of the Church comes to fruition in Acts

Isn't it strange the the end of Acts (chapter 28) is in Rome? Jesus in Acts 1:8 says to take his message to the "ends of the earth" -- to Rome?

Rome formed a great Empire and God used this to spread His Word

Remember that saying “All roads lead to Rome.”? Christianity went to Rome, the roads' starting point of it's spread -- God's will. Rome is the symbol of this world-wide mission because Rome was the center of the known world to many in the 1st century

429 posted on 07/05/2012 12:06:47 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: LevinFan

We also read of the first developments of the Eucharist and Mass — Acts 2:46 and the works of the Spirit


430 posted on 07/05/2012 12:07:49 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: LevinFan; Natural Law
We’re told we worship a book, while they follow the words of men alone.

and here I thought you were the one who said not to distort the words of others. No one said to follow the words of men, alone or otherwise.

431 posted on 07/05/2012 12:24:00 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: .45 Long Colt
I pray the Lord opens your eyes. Your posts have consistently been wrong on this thread.. your posts have also consistently given false statements about what we Christians in the Church believe -- right from your post's false statement about infallibilty to the incorrect statement about mediatorship

To be fair, your statements look like they come out of a standard "this is why caflix are wrong" and are unresearched from Catholic sources.

For instance,


432 posted on 07/05/2012 12:29:29 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: xone

yes, sorry for that earlier error.


433 posted on 07/05/2012 1:07:10 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I'm willing to read the book but I refuse to send 9 something plus S&H to read what some crackpot thinks who doesn't believe the bible anyway... The guy may make his fortune off of gullible Catholics but I doubt many non Catholics will buy the book...

Iscool I find this very difficult to believe since on three occasions I have offered to send you FREE of CHARGE a copy of Tim Staples CD on how reading the Bible converted him to the Catholic Church. I am pleased to hear that you have changed your mind. Please Frremail me an address where I can send this to you at MY EXPENSE.

ISCOOL I am still waiting for you to freemail me that address so that I can send you FREE OF CHARGE, AT MY EXPENSE, GRATIS, AT NO COST TO YOU WHAT SO EVER, the copy of Tim Staples CD on how he was converted to the Catholic Church by Jimmy Swaggert and the Bible. Did I mention that it was FREE, and was NOT COSTING YOU ONE READ CENT?

I mean you made the point that you were more than willing to read something if it wasn't going to cost you anything. This is even easier all you have to do is listen.

434 posted on 07/05/2012 3:05:59 AM PDT by verga (Every single cult leader believes in home schooling....Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
This discussion is very interesting, but before we get too much further, I have a question for you.

I am a believing, baptized, and practicing Christian. I do not now, and never will, practice Christianity as a Roman Catholic.

So here comes the question: Simply because I am not Roman Catholic -- in your viewpoint (I'm not asking you to "play God", just your view) -- is my soul salvation at risk? Or not?

I will answer your question about my "stand" in a separate reply.

FRegards

435 posted on 07/05/2012 4:38:10 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Maybe your should read some of the stuff others have said to me. One guy laughed at me because I have faith that the bible is the word of God, ordained and protected by Him. I’m pretty sure the Pope and I are in agreement on THAT point. I’m not convinced the guy who laughed is really even Christian. He didn’t seem to understand that faith is a gift from God.
But there were a few in this thread with little or no respect for the Written Word. To them, the bible is Harry Potter.
I’m fine with you. You seem to have a respect for His written Word, and even I listen to my teachers and pastor. but I test what they say against His word. But as I said in and earlier post, not all Catholics are united. Nor are all members of my church.
We have people who are instructed by their pastor to read His Word, and they still don’t. Old joke is that the best place to hide something from a christian is inside their bible.


436 posted on 07/05/2012 5:21:30 AM PDT by LevinFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
What is your stand on:

1. something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching) -- all three use scripture alone to justify their points of view and have three diverge in their points of view

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD". Jesus was, is, and ever shall be God.

2.[T]he REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (as your post said)?

Ah, I see how you work: you copied these talking points from another reply to someone else. :-) I never replied to you about this issue before.

Communion is not "merely" a memorial to Jesus (as Church of Christ, for example). Nor does the bread literally become the body of Christ. During Communion with Christ, Christ draws *very* near in a powerful way and connects to believers to hear the groanings of their souls. That's what "communion" with another is, right? (*That's* a Methodist view, by the way, although it's tough to articulate in one phrase. Methodists do *not* believe in transsubstantiation, or even consubstantiation.)

3.talking in tongues -- does one HAVE to talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?

No. Talking in tongues (and interpreting tongues) is but one spiritual gift that some believers have. Read 1 Corinthians 12 in its entirety, verse 4 of which says "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit."

4.and the episcopate (bishops etc.) -- some who have scripture alone have it, some don't

The Church of Jesus Christ allows for elders (bishops) to guide the flock; Paul does a thorough job of setting down their qualifications and their duties in his letters to Timothy and Titus. A better question would be: are elders (bishops) congregational only, that is "no hierarchy", or is there scriptural justification for a "world hierarchy" of men who govern the church? In this, I adhere to the Church of Christ et al belief that elders are intended to be "congregational only", without hierarchy. However I don't believe that soul salvation hinges on this point.

5. Do you read in scripture alone whether Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?

Baptism of infants is OK but unnecessary; an infant is without sin. After the age of accountability, a believer must, and will, be baptized. A better question: is baptism for the remission of sins, or a sacrament of belief?

Baptism is never sufficient for salvation, of course; men are saved through God's grace, freely given, in the form of Jesus Christ.

6. God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Calvinism is misguided but harmless in terms of men's souls. Think about it. :-)

7.Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?

Redundant question

8. agree or disagree with soul sleep?

Not sure I understand the question, but if you're asking what I think your asking, agree

That's all I have time for, Chronos. It's been an interesting exercise though. I may answer the others later, or not, depending on whether you give *me* an honest answer to my question to you.

In closing, let me mention this:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

"When we all get to heaven...":

A lot of Catholics are going to be shocked -- SHOCKED!! -- that members of the Church of Christ are there. And vice versa.

Catholics and Church of Christ are going to be rather surprised that ANYONE else is there. :-)

Calvinists will be amused to learn that they were NOT picked for all eternity.

Methodists will be asked why they came up with that presumptuous name, and won't have a good answer for the Almighty

Mennonites will discover that the hat and beard requirement went out of style in the first century

Pentecostals will learn -- as they always suspected -- that a lot of that gibberish that guy in the next pew spouted was in fact just gibberish...

But the point is, we'll BE there. In Heaven. Eternal life worshipping the Almighty, thanks be to GOD for the gift of Jesus, for " there in no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.".

What really matters, Chronos?

FRegards

437 posted on 07/05/2012 5:42:37 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Well, I can’t prove tongues as anything more than people’s enthusiasm. That is where faith, comes in. but I know for a fact that healing still exists. I’ve seen it and heard about it from too many reputable leaders.
I don’t beleive for a second that the gifts ceased, and I’m pretty sure Catholics agree. I gather Catholics don’t beleive tongues are for all.
Tongues are not salvation, but supernatural prayer. I fell into the tongues are salvation game until I was encouraged to read my bible. Drove me nuts thinking I was unsaved.


438 posted on 07/05/2012 5:51:16 AM PDT by LevinFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Sorry, but it's not "all about you".

You're right it isn't, but it must be about standing on a corner screaming at any one who walks by because one is too ignorant to discern who is part of the problem. Lunatic ravings that include everyone, include no one. for no listens to the words of the screaming fool. Work on target ID, then the rants might have an effect. Good luck.

439 posted on 07/05/2012 5:55:03 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

No problem, you corrected yourself anyone can make a mistake.


440 posted on 07/05/2012 5:57:02 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
That phrase was an expression of the poster's mind not a reading of yours, i.e. the points he believes you must make in defense of the Catholic Church.

If the thread becomes redirected from the issues to a discussion about you or the other poster, personally, then that would be "making it personal."

441 posted on 07/05/2012 6:05:27 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

the entire sentence was “ your task is to defend “ — now at other times when I’ve said “your masters tell you to”, you’ve said that was making it personal..


442 posted on 07/05/2012 6:52:18 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Every church claims they embody the first church. and in a sense they are right. Read the NT and you see factionalism left and right.
What I don’t see is people is people spiritualy speaking to a dead marry, or anyone else. I don’t see anyone bowing before a statue in reverence or worship. I don’t see baby baptisms. A baptism must be a personal choice, or it is a bath.
I don’t see a formal confessional, but I don’t see that as sin. No man can grant to deny forgiveness on behalf of God. and many seem to use it as a way to sin feely and then cleans themselves by telling a priest dirty stories. But yes, we are commanded to confess our sins, one to another. But that is for accountability, not forgiveness. It is easy to sin in secret. Not so easy when someone is holding you accountable. And a priest isn’t always a good accountability partner. He is a man like any other. I’ve heard numerous stories of blabbermouth preachers or their wives. Ask anyone who does addiction theropy about the value of that.

As for miracles, those continue to this day and are performed by many, even in faiths I think are off the wall. All have gifts.
Many churches feed the poor, not just Catholics.
I read the NT, and see a church that shares much of what any church today has, including Catholicism. I see people reading scripture to prove what was taught, not simply taking a man’s word for it like many choose.(even Protestants do that.)
You want to see your church as the original based on the NT, but I see the basics of most churches. After that, you and many others started to add to what they did, just as the Pharisees did. You aren’t alone in that, and it isn’t necessarily sin, though I do see some that are sin or come dangerous close to sin. But it is the traditions of men seeking to earned their way in.


443 posted on 07/05/2012 6:56:22 AM PDT by LevinFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: .45 Long Colt
why don't you study scripture and see for yourself how utterly wrong it is to deny Christ's True presence in the Eucharist.if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.
444 posted on 07/05/2012 7:00:59 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I don't recall telling you that "your masters tell you to" was mind reading. It may have been "making it personal" if the thread was derailed into a discussion about individual Freepers.

Do you have the link?

445 posted on 07/05/2012 7:04:20 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Not off-hand. That was in 2011 :-)


446 posted on 07/05/2012 7:11:55 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: LevinFan
I don’t see baby baptisms. A baptism must be a personal choice, or it is a bath.

Not necessarily. Scripture does record that "entire households" were baptised. I'll grant you that it doesn't explicitly say babies were baptised, but then it doesn't explicitly say they weren't...

447 posted on 07/05/2012 7:13:19 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: LevinFan
And a priest isn’t always a good accountability partner. He is a man like any other. I’ve heard numerous stories of blabbermouth preachers or their wives

yet you don't hear of priests from orthodoxy or Lutheran pastors blabbing about what's said in the confessional. It's inspite of themselves that, not any great personal will-power.

448 posted on 07/05/2012 7:14:25 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: LevinFan
You want to see your church as the original based on the NT, but I see the basics of most churches

Not most. I see the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Oriental, Assyrian) reflected as I see the Lutherans and Anglicans, but not all the others. Methodists to an extent yes, but Christian Scientists no. Baptists -- depending on which yes and no. Same for Pentecostals -- Assemblies of God are orthodox, but Benny Hinn isn't... etc

449 posted on 07/05/2012 7:16:42 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: .45 Long Colt

And remember that even Calvinists disavow sola scriptura completely -> remember the Marburg Colloquy


450 posted on 07/05/2012 7:21:13 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500501-503 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson