Two websites that I highly recommend for those search for the truth...

5,441 Views | 157 Replies | Last: 19 yr ago by Guadaloop474
orag80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Info on every Bible and life issue imaginable from the Bible...
http://beavertonchurchofchrist.net/

Info on false religions...
http://home.earthlink.net/~mrsamerica1/index.html

Acts 2:38...this means you!
Physics96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Info on false religions...

More like "Info on what some random guy who doesn't know a thing about Scriptural exegesis declares false...."

Nothing here for a truth-seeker.
orag80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Given the timestamp for your response, you spent an absolute max of 28 minutes "thoroughly" investigating these sites, and still had time to make a blanket condemning statement. Suggest you really spend some time investigating the wealth of truthful information at these sites, and then list your specific points / objections if you want to be taken seriously.

Acts 2:38...this means you!
Physics96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, it doesn't even take 28 minutes to find falsehood, and falsehood pretty much disqualifies them as a source of truth, doesn't it?

People who call the Pope "The Man of Sin" have pretty much lose all credibility instantly. No respectable commentator, even among Protestants, endorses that belief.
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emrsamerica1/Pope.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emrsamerica1/Pope2.htm

More terrible exegesis:
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emrsamerica1/CatBible.htm

Bad history and exegesis:
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emrsamerica1/Petra.htm

Saying Catholics aren't true Christians is not much better:
http://newgeorgiachurch.com/cath2.html

Pretending they don't have Scriptural responses is laughable:
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emrsamerica1/Mary.htm

Similar trash about Calvinism:
http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Feenstra/C/A/1931/TOC.html

Truth is hard to find, but spotting untruth is pretty easy when you know the marks. Unwillingness to engage the opposition is one of them. The truth has nothing to fear from confrontation; this is nothing but a complete failure to confront others' interpretations.

orag80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Regarding the links you posted, in the order that they appear...

1 & 2 - No doubt it is a strongly worded title, but IF the Catholic church is an apostacy, and the Pope is the head of that apostacy, is the title inaccurate? What any commentator thinks is irrelevant if the Bible shows otherwise.

3 - Did you look at the examples? Do you deny them? If so, which ones?

4 - Is completely accurate. If not, then show where and how.

5 - Tell me how anyone could read the New Testament and follow it, and then call themselves "Catholic" rather than "Christian". I read about followers becoming Christians, not Catholics. To call yourself a Catholic requires the addition of something outside of the scriptures to make you what you are. Did you read the content of this link? If there are parts you disagree with then kindly point them out with scriptural backing.

6 - Fine then please take this opportunity to refute. Use scriptures please.

7 - OK, then tell me what parts of Calvinism's TULIP points you agree with, and why. Cite scriptures please.

Feel free to send it to my e-mail address:
bob.rogerson@intel.com
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I read about followers becoming Christians, not Catholics. To call yourself a Catholic requires the addition of something outside of the scriptures to make you what you are.


Actually, to get so specific on what one calls a follower of Christ is itself an addition.

No, if you are going to be that nitpicky, you should resort to `followers of the Way'. Even the term Christian does not date from Christ immediately. And the attribution that the church was "universal" (catholic) and apostolic is being made by the time Apostle John dies.

But I fairly need to read a few of the links first to guage how they are using the history. A quick glance at the one Physics said was bad history
quote:
Bad history and exegesis:
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emrsamerica1/Petra.htm


does appear to be way off in how its looking at Peter's role and the historical record.
Physics96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quick and easy one-stop shopping, pretty much addresses every one of those verses:
http://catholicoutlook.com/objections.html

Responses to many of those claims in excruciating detail (just pick a subject):
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ345.HTM
I make no apologies for the polemical tone you might find, since the site is responding to polemical arguments, like the ones that you presented.

If you've got a Bible handy, the following site references several verses on numerous subjects. It doesn't reproduce the verses themselves, so you'll need to look them up on your own.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

Suffice it to say that every one of those points has been addressed directly at one or more of these websites, generally with a significant degree of linguistic and historical support. I don't see any reason to respond to them individually here, particularly when the arguments don't rise above the level of "well, I read the Bible, and X verse [taken out of context, of course] says the Pope is the Antichrist."

Edit -- Oh, and by the way, I proudly call myself Christian, and a member of the Church of Christ, so I don't even want to hear about this nonsense about us not calling ourselves Christian.

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 11/6/2003 11:02p).]
orag80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Christians" IS found in the Bible. "Catholics" or "the Way" (as a label for the group who follow Christ) is NOT...

Acts 11:26 - And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Regarding the Peter issue...

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The "rock" (petra, feminine) that Jesus is referring to is the truth that Peter (petros, masculine) stated in Matt 16:16.

The closest thing to what you are arguing is...

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];

Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Showing that ALL of the apostles (not just Peter) are included in the foundation, with Christ as the chief cornerstone.
Physics96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again, all answered in those websites. You might be particularly interested in Dave Armstrong's article on the keys and binding and loosing in 1st century Jewish culture. That is, of course, if you are serious about diligent study of the Word. If you would prefer to proof-text, and not to take that task seriously, then you wouldn't be interested.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
"Christians" IS found in the Bible. "Catholics" or "the Way" (as a label for the group who follow Christ) is NOT...


Oh, you are doing "Bible Only". Didn't realize that. I was talking about historical sources and how the names came to be used. Acts was not written immediately after Christ. You didn't address the way you are using the terms and timing as a club *IS* an addition. They were all descriptors.

quote:
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The "rock" (petra, feminine) that Jesus is referring to is the truth that Peter (petros, masculine) stated in Matt 16:16.


It is significant to note that Christ made that statement and commission in the vicinity of the great Rock that is the source of the River Jordan at Caesarea Philippi. Atop that rock stood an elaborate temple dedicated to the Deified Caesar. A good part of Jesus's declaration should be understood in that context and that Jesus is speaking of Peter rather directly in analogy.
Sink Maggots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He is not speaking of Peter.

Peter was married.
Peter was not infalliable -- being rebuked by Paul.
None of them was elevated above the rest in any regard.
The closest thing to the pope in the word of God is this:
2 Thess 2:3-4 -- Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

texags77@yahoo.com
Please feel free to respond by email.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
77,

quote:
He is not speaking of Peter.

Peter was married.
Peter was not infalliable -- being rebuked by Paul.



What do either of those have to do with that passage?

Peter had perserverance, not infallibility. He strayed or erred, but came back. Building `upon him' had nothing to do with flawlessness, but rather steadfastness and durability when you look at his own life.

And the marriage reference puzzles. Apparently he was married -- what has that to do with the passage?
Sink Maggots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That is why I started a new paragraph. I simply stated in the first part that it was not talking about Peter on which the church is built. Christ church is either built on Peter (which it's not) or it's built on the fact that Jesus is the Christ the son of God (which it is).

texags77@yahoo.com
Please feel free to respond by email.
orag80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Welcome 77 and thanks for adding valid points.
You are exactly correct with "Christ church is either built on Peter (which it's not) or it's built on the fact that Jesus is the Christ the son of God (which it is)" and your 2 Thess citation. It is one of many very Catholic practices, along with forbidding to marry (ex: priests), abstaining from meats (fishless Fridays), calling no man the religious title of Father, and more.

Titan, the significance of Peter (supposedly the first "pope" being married should be obvious given that according to Catholic doctrine the priests, high or otherwise, are supposed to be unmarried / celibate. Also, I make no apologies for basing my replies on "Bible only".

Physics, I find it amusing that I am being criticized for citing book, chapter, and verse in my replies. Are you suggesting a more subjective and slippery approach? I make no apologies for using "proof texts", because that is exactly what they are.

Finally regarding your quote..
"Oh, and by the way, I proudly call myself Christian, and a member of the Church of Christ, so I don't even want to hear about this nonsense about us not calling ourselves Christian."
Fine, but do you ALSO call yourself "Catholic"? Using a term outside of the Bible to make you what you are?

Acts 2:38...this means you!
AggiePA01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Orag, you clearly know very little about the Catholic church (which doesn't surprise me one bit, actually)...over the years I have found that arguing with people such as yourself is a waste of time and I'd much rather speak with my Christian brothers and sisters (Catholic or Protestant, no matter) who would rather focus on Glorifying God as opposed to making judgements. However, I did want to point out that in the Catholic church there's a difference between Church Dogma and Church Doctrine. Church Dogma is indisputable. Church Doctrine on the other hand, is the way the faith is PRACTICED and is based BOTH on tradition and Scripture. So in the case of priests being unable to marry--that's Doctrine. In Eastern Europe, priests in the Catholic Church tend to be married (for many historical reasons that I won't even bother to list). My home parish priest is also married. He was an Episcopalian and converted to Catholicism. He was "priest" in the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church allowed him to enter into the priesthood--even though he is married. Exceptions can be made--and before you throw your "oh so the church is wishy-washy" junk my way, go research FROM A CATHOLIC SOURCE, the difference between Dogma and Doctrine.
God Bless,
AggiePA '01
Sink Maggots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Could you please point out in the Bible where it talks about the distinction of "dogma" and doctrine?

texags77@yahoo.com
Please feel free to respond by email.
Christian Pulisic FanBoy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Two websites that I highly recommend for those search for the truth...


If you already know the truth, why do you need to go to a website to validate what you already know?
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
orag80,

quote:
Titan, the significance of Peter (supposedly the first "pope" being married should be obvious given that according to Catholic doctrine the priests, high or otherwise, are supposed to be unmarried / celibate.


But its not obvious because the celibacy valuation has nothing whatever to do with Peter's status. There is no connection at all. Celibacy ends up being promoted for varying reasons, but none connecting to Peter or even his immediate successors. Nor is Peter "supposedly" the first Pope. If you mean the title, that's alot later yes, and its pretty misleading to call him Pope per-se. But its fairly reliable that he is first bishop of Rome.

quote:
Also, I make no apologies for basing my replies on "Bible only".


None are expected, but its not a reliable way to explore matters post-dating its writings. 100 AD give or take a year is the absolute cut-off for the latest ones, and the gospels and epistles all pre-date the martyrdom of Peter and Paul apart from John, and so naturally, they don't comment on what followed.

AggiePA01 has made a good reply on the matter of celibacy, and its not necessarily binding character. Nor is the difference between "doctrine or dogma" something to poke at. They are just description terms, and AggiePA01 got it right. Incidentally, "dogma" corresponds more akin to the word/beleifs Protestants have in mind when they say `doctrine'. The very important matters, rather than practices.
Physics96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Physics, I find it amusing that I am being criticized for citing book, chapter, and verse in my replies. Are you suggesting a more subjective and slippery approach? I make no apologies for using "proof texts", because that is exactly what they are.

I'm not criticizing you for citing book, chapter, and verse. I'm critizing you for taking a reckless approach to Scripture. Proof-texting means quoting a text for support while deliberately ignoring its intended meaning. If that's what you mean by "proof-texting," I'm sad to hear you admit it. I would like to see you get beyond "what Scripture means to me" (subjective) to what Scripture actually says (objective). But again, that requires work. It's much easier to say "well, this is what I think, so who cares about all of those pesky facts?"
kjaneway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Orag80:
Not commenting on this argument, as I dislike arguing theology, but I did notice the link of the Church of Christ in Beaverton.

Having just moved back after living two years in that terrific town, I actually know where that is and have heard good things about it, even though I am a Lutheran, not CofC.
Is that your church?

Back to your regularly scheduled argument.
Ronnie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Physics, don't be too hard on him. It takes having been on this board for a couple of years and reading this forum (and posting every so often) and see the cycles of posters (and their usernames) to be aquianted with the lingo. I'm sure as a lawyer you talk about "proof texting" all the time. I have no idea what orag80's background is, but I didn't know some of the terms like that when I first read this forum.

Oh and a quick word on the doctrine vs. dogma in the Catholic Church: might have confused them a little there. Probably a better way to phrase it is there are things in the orthodox Christian teaching that are Tradition (big T, passed on from Apostolic teaching) and tradition (certainly not harmful to the practice of our faith, has been around for many years, but not something that will never change. Oh and the origins of these things vary). Celibacy of the clergy is a good example. Wasn't a requirement ipso facto (did I use that right ) but it was seen as beneficial, as Paul taught in his letter to Corinth. So we have the tradition in the Latin rite (read:Roman Catholic Church) and other rites (Coptic, Byzantine, etc.) do not. The Eastern Orthodox I do not beleive have this tradition either.

OK. Back to the sidelines. I'll jump in to explain any of my post.
PurdueAg01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
orag80, I agree with others on this board about your approach. You have to sit back on the sidelines for a bit before jumping into the fray here to get anything out of it. When you throw out some of the comments like you have toward Physics or titan (or YYZ, jkotinke, 77, Ag Germany or anybody else that's here a lot), you'll get eaten alive. The common posters here know their stuff, so you can't find some random website and quote it as the Gospel without researching it pretty thoroughly first.
orag80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I really wish I had the time to delve into all of this in the detail necessary. One reason I never joined this board before is because I knew it would be a sink hole of time, which I don't have.

Rudyjax - I originally posted these links in order to give the posters here something to investigate, and I hope all of you will. Be sure and look at the topics posted on the home page of the first link (will need to scroll down to see them).

77 - makes an excellent point. Where does the Bible make the distinction between dogma and doctrine? Where does it hold that tradition (of any source) is to be held in equal esteem with scripture, which was written by inspired men as guided by the Holy Spirit? Basing any position on anything other than book, chapter and verse is the slippery slope that many have followed.

Titan - there is no evidence Peter was ever in Rome. I think celibacy is an important issue with the pope and with Catholic priests. No, I'm not a Catholic, but from the outside it sure seems to be a requirement of the pope, priests, etc. Incidently, the New Testament teaches that ALL Christians - not some select group - are priests (1 Peter 2:9, Rev 1:6). Also, "matters post dating the Bible's writings" are 100% non-inspired and non-relevent.

Physics - let's forget the rathole about what you or I mean about "proof texts". To rephrase my position: what the Bible teaches is the only standard to base our beliefs, what it teaches in book, chapter, and verse. It requires some study, some comparing "like" scriptures, reconciling some difficult passages, and ruling out things that other scriptures have already made clear. Church tradition, church doctrines, dogmas, etc., no matter how old, are man-made and irrelevent. The proof, the standard, the truth is in the scriptures. Those are the facts.

Janag81 - the answer is "yes', thanks for asking.

Purdue - thanks for the friendly advice, but I am very comfortable with the foundation I trusting in as described above. It is upon no other foundation than the Gospel. Again, I posted these links as ones I am familiar with and recommend. Specifically, the first is my congregation's website. I stand behind everything posted there. Please investigate it. The second website was very helpful as one of my sites on gaining info about Mormonism (see other thread). I had not read the Catholic section, but the parts that came out in this thread ("upon this rock", being the truth Peter spoke, not Peter himself, etc.) are correct, and I'm confident the rest is too based on what I've heard about this site.

Acts 2:38...this means you!
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
there is no evidence Peter was ever in Rome


orag80- there is plenty of evidence (maybe none that you will accept, but there is evidence) that St. Peter was in Rome and was martyred there. The following is a fairly brief essay on the topic I found at this link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPEAPOL.HTM

The bishop of Rome can't be the "successor to Peter," since Peter was never in Rome. The Bible nowhere says he went there, and Paul, who did go there, never mentions Peter being in Rome. If Peter were the "pope," he certainly would have mentioned it.



Trying to prove St. Peter did not go to Rome and die there is a lot like trying to prove that St. Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew. True, the Bible doesn't explicitly say he went to Rome, but the surrounding historical evidence is more than sufficient to prove that he did.

But first, we should ask, "If St. Peter didn't go to Rome, where did he go? Where did he die?" We'd expect to find plenty of evidence in the writings of the early Church telling us where this prominent Apostle carried out his final years of ministry, if it were some place other than Rome. But the historical record contains no hint that he ended his days anywhere but Rome. No other city except Rome ever claimed to possess the site of his martyrdom or his tomb (and early Christians were extraordinarily diligent about making and proving such claims). No other city - not even Antioch, where he resided for a time during his apostolate - claimed he ended his days among them. No Church Father or Council or any other early Church record indicates that he finished his days anywhere but in Rome.

That's the lack of evidence side of the coin. The flip side is the mountain of evidence proving he did go to Rome. Everyone everywhere in the early Church agreed that St. Peter went to Rome, ministered there for more than two decades, and suffered martyrdom by inverted crucifixion in A.D. 65, under the persecution of Emperor Nero. Given the grave danger to the early Church from a hostile Roman government, it makes perfect sense that St. Paul would not mention St. Peter's whereabouts in his letters. He didn't want to draw unfriendly attention. It's also quite possible that St. Peter had not yet arrived in Rome when St. Paul was writing. We even see St. Peter himself making what seems to be a cryptic reference to his presence in Rome when he says "The chosen one at Babylon sends you greetings, as does Mark, my son" (I Peter 5:13). "Babylon" was a commonly used code word for Rome among Christians, because its pagan decadence and opposition to Christ was reminiscent of the idolatrous wickedness associated with ancient Babylon.

But once St. Peter had been martyred, the testimonies of his sojourn in Rome with St. Paul poured forth in a flood from the early Christian writers. Perhaps the most detailed of these early accounts came from St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) in his apologetics work, Against Heresies. He gave a detailed account of succession of the bishops of Rome, from St. Peter down to his own day. He referred to Rome as the city "where Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the Church. "Other notable early examples were St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), who referred to the Church at Rome as "the Church of Peter and Paul" (Letter to the Romans); St. Cyprian (d. 251), who described Rome as 'The place of Peter" (Epistle 52); and St. Jerome (d. 420), who called Rome "the See of Peter" (Epistle 15, to Pope Damasus). Around A.D. 166, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter, "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome …."(quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:25).

Besides the vast amount of historical evidence showing that St. Peter went to Rome, modern archaeology has cinched the case even tighter by a definitive scientific demonstration that his bones (studies showed that they are of a powerfully built elderly man who died of crucifixion) are interred directly beneath the high altar in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, several levels down, where the original first century Vatican hill sloped away toward the Tiber River, This was just outside the walls of what was once Nero's Circus - precisely where all the early Christian and even non-Christian records say St. Peter was crucified and buried.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PurdueAg01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
One reason I never joined this board before is because I knew it would be a sink hole of time, which I don't have.
So why are you here now? Are you here to throw out various points from a website without earnestly listening to responses to them and then call one billion people (not including those who have died over the last 1970 years) followers of a "man of sin"?
quote:
I think celibacy is an important issue with the pope and with Catholic priests. No, I'm not a Catholic, but from the outside it sure seems to be a requirement of the pope, priests, etc.
So basically you say the Church is in apostasy, but then you admit that you're completely ignorant about teachings of the Church. This issue of celibacy is a pretty simple one, and you admit that you have no idea what the Church's teaching on it is. Nice approach.

I suggest you look into things a little more deeply before you start calling the largest and oldest group of Christian believers in the world followers of a "man of sin".
Sink Maggots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do you know what the word church means?

texags77@yahoo.com
Please feel free to respond by email.
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body. Hopefully some day soon the Church of Christ will be united once again.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
orag80,

quote:
Titan - there is no evidence Peter was ever in Rome.


That is so ludicrous as to warrant little attention. You even went for "ever in Rome" not something debateable like position he held.

True, with your "Bible Only" approach, there is not *much* evidence, but even there, in the epistles, mention of `Babylon' a code-word for Rome and Rome's apostolic foundation (who was the apostle then?) constitute even biblical clues if recall correctly.

Here:
First Epistle of Peter:
quote:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. To (the exiles of the Dispersion)" (1 Peter 1:1 then near the end this):....by Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written breifly to you.... She [Me & the Church here] who is at Babyblon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and does my son Mark. Greet one another with the kiss of love. Peace to all of you who are in Christ." I Peter 5:14


You have to read the whole letter, connecting the beginning to the end, and you see a coherent picture. Mark, you will recall, is said to have written his gospel on the basis of Peter's dictation. There, there you have a Scriptural example that happens to meet the overly high-bar of source you set. It is equally significant that not till the 16th C Reformation did any feel any need to try to deny that Peter was ever in Rome. The traditions and historical statements about it were too strong. I see jkag89 touched on it, but there is a fuller context in support.

quote:
I think celibacy is an important issue with the pope and with Catholic priests. No, I'm not a Catholic, but from the outside it sure seems to be a requirement of the pope, priests, etc. Incidently, the New Testament teaches that ALL Christians - not some select group - are priests (1 Peter 2:9, Rev 1:6).


It is important, but not a dogmatic one. If you won't recognize that statement, nothing can be said.

quote:
Also, "matters post dating the Bible's writings" are 100% non-inspired and non-relevent.


`Non-relevant'? All I can say is you had better be right. Scripture itself doesn't claim that, so it comes from your persuasion and faith view's bias. Jkag89 made a good attempt to explain the evidence for Peter, but given this statement, he does so in vain, and so would further historical examples.

[This message has been edited by titan (edited 11/9/2003 10:49p).]
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
orag80,

Something to note in the tenor here:
quote:
Physics - let's forget the rathole about what you or I mean about "proof texts". To rephrase my position: what the Bible teaches is the only standard to base our beliefs, what it teaches in book, chapter, and verse. ... Church tradition, church doctrines, dogmas, etc., no matter how old, are man-made and irrelevent. The proof, the standard, the truth is in the scriptures. Those are the facts.


and:
quote:
Purdue - thanks for the friendly advice, but I am very comfortable with the foundation I trusting in as described above. It is upon no other foundation than the Gospel.


But Paul did not put the Bible as that foundation:
quote:
"..you may know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark [defense/foundation]of the truth." 1 Tim: 3:14


You see, the Scripture itself gives the place of honor to the church. Probably in the Ortohdox sense of church with living pillars upholding Christ's witness. In in any case, this note is contained *in* the Bible. The two, Scripture and church form a unit.

And all traditions or church doctrines are, especially the early ones, are "frozen" understandings of what those scriptures meant . They should not be casually cast aside.

[This message has been edited by titan (edited 11/9/2003 11:03p).]
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
The two, Scripture and church form a unit.


Simple and to the point, excellent post titan.
Are you sure you are a T.Tech grad?
Physics96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
To rephrase my position: what the Bible teaches is the only standard to base our beliefs, what it teaches in book, chapter, and verse. It requires some study, some comparing "like" scriptures, reconciling some difficult passages, and ruling out things that other scriptures have already made clear. Church tradition, church doctrines, dogmas, etc., no matter how old, are man-made and irrelevent. The proof, the standard, the truth is in the scriptures. Those are the facts.

Yes, and you, in your infinite linguistic and theological expertise, decide what passages are "like" and "clear" and "difficult." You've adopted the Holiday Inn Express theory of Biblical interpretation ("I don't know a thing about 1st century Palestinian Judaism, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night" ). Fortunately, anyone with an actual commitment to the truth will see right through your errors. I just wanted to make sure that the absurdity of the position was noted, and that reliable information responding to the position was readily available.

Again, I exhort you to take your own mandate seriously. If you really believe that the Bible is the only sure basis of truth, *please* try to take the study of the Word seriously. You wouldn't consider yourself qualified to perform neurosurgery without going to medical school, so why do you take the very Word of God less seriously?
Sink Maggots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Church is used in both a local sense and universal sense.

When the local church (called out) comes together to meet -- the church in that sense is those Christians meeting at that building.

In Matt 16:18 when Jesus said I will build my church -- that is universal and refers to all of those individual Christians who are a part of local churches.

So please realize what you are saying when you say certain words from the Bible.

texags77@yahoo.com
Please feel free to respond by email.
orag80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Right on again 77...good work.

Physics - all scripture is truth, but the fact is that some verses require a little more effort to understand than others. Spare me the assumption that I don't take Bible study seriously. I assure you I do.

Also spare me the appeal to PhD's in divinty, Bible Scholars and theologians. Again, while some passages do require additional digging, the Bible was written for the average person with a good and honest heart to understand. If these people were all so brilliant and insightful REGARDING THE WORD OF GOD then we wouldn't have so many conflicting religions now would we? The fact is that man's opinions, pride, and prejudices, along with failure to study, is what gets them off course. Prime example: the Gay archbishop (or whatever) from the Northeast in the press recently. How could ANY church that claims to follow the Bible allow someone who left their wife and family, and is practicing homosexuality to attain any status in their church. Being PhD's of Divinty, Bible "Scholars" or theologians (of which I am sure that church has plenty of) didn't seem to help so much there did it? It was a blatant disregard for clear Bible teaching (let me know if you need verses on these matters).

Titan - The verse you cite proves no such thing. The Bible IS the foundation of all truth, not the Bible plus "what the church says" or the Bible plus "what the Pope" says...

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Acts 2:38...this means you!
PurdueAg01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
While this verse is of course completely true, and Scripture is indeed profitable for doctrine, reproof, and correction, how does this passage refute titan's point? It still never makes the claim that Scripture is the *only* authoritative text or foundation. Where do you get this teaching?

You also didn't respond to what I posted yesterday. You admitted your ignorance of the Catholic Church's teachings, but had no qualms about suggesting the Church is in apostasy. It's quite obvious that you have not looked into these issues.
RenoAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Point is in verse 17 - the result is that the man is able to be "perfect"(I think complete is a better translation) and equipped for every good work. Nothing else is necessary to accomplish this. To say that other things are necessary or even allowable is contradictory to these verses based on what scripture accomplishes. Why would there be a need for anything else?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.