you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it. (2)

[Montalban]

Scripture.
What else would they use?

How could they have? Paul goes to the Corinthians and starts to preach to Gentiles. He didn't have the Bible to teach them. What he taught them was 'new' insofar as Christianity differs from Judaism, so even if he used the OT in part to illustrate his teachings, what he taught was not reliant on the Bible!

He later wrote to them and this is put in the Bible 300 years later.

Why would the teaching be fallible orally but
infallible when written? It's the same teaching.

I agree. Oral teaching is not fallible. You said only scripture was infalible. You just answered your own challenge!

It does explain the point, but you might not understand
my words, or maybe for some reason you disagree.
Before I was saved it didnt matter what I did.
Now it matters very much what I do to know God
better.

Why? Stop just repeating that it does, please and explain why.

I'm now a new creation in Christ Jesus, living an
entirely new life. I need God's help to have success
in this world, to be as a light shining in the universe,
in the midst of a crooked and depraved generation.

Why do you need God's help when you're already saved?

You're again looking to a SALVATION+ idea, as if salvation isn't sufficient. You need something more.

We're transformed more and more into His image.
Salvation plus??

Yes indeed. You claim you're saved, but then you need extra help.

An example would be the theif on the cross.
He was 'saved' that day, but had he lived,
he'd be transformed more and more into the image
of Christ.
We start out as babes in Christ.

Where's that in the Bible?

Why would non Christians want to pray to God?

Because they believe God is not the Chrisitan God

 

[Montalban]

Wherefore he saith: Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee.
The words are a paraphrase of Isa 60:1, 2, not an exact quotation.

I agree. Where's it say

" This is why it is said:
"Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."

Paul is stating a connection based on someone else making that connection. He's saying someone else said... "X" (including a reference to Issiah.)

I didnt say that.

I'm showing you where Paul refers to a teaching he heard from word of mouth.
Acts 20: 35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

And that's not what I think, and
so not 'my theory'.
I said:

It is your theory. You said the only infallible word was that written down! Given that those words weren't written down when Paul heard it, he relied upon being taught by word of mouth... which you say in not infallible. However once he's recorded it, it is then infallible. You simply can not have it both ways!

 

[Montalban]

Didnt say that either.

Yes you did. You said only Scripture is infallible.

 

[Montalban]

Response to post on the old thread:

Please answer my question to you.

Where in scripture does it say we must rely only on scripture?

 

[Montalban]

So Uphill Battle says that there's not something in scripture that says he should only rely on scripture -there's something else. Thus he needs something to OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE to say he should only use scripture.

Holo and Koey can't answer the challenge at all.

Sunlover1 says we can only rely on Scripture as being infallible but can't explain how Paul was taught PRIOR TO scripture. And, then admits what he taught orally was the same as what he wrote, thus undermining her own argument by showing that the transmission of this 'infallible' teaching need not rely on it being written down!

That's the basis of Protestantism! Illogic.

 

[Uphill Battle]

So you understand that it's you and it's not the practice?

pretty much. That was the point in the first place, before everyone else got all up in arms about it.

That's good because putting down another Christian's practice is not cool.

oh, sure. Us memorialists will remember that.

And why can't you pray a prayer from the heart? Why couldn't you pray the words of someone else and mean it? When Billy Graham leads ppl in prayer, does not all pray along?

I feel it's inauthentic. (And I've never done a follow the bouncing ball prayer like that.)

Jesus taught us the Our Father and that is an absolute perfect prayer, so you are mistaken.

not remotely. Jesus didn't say "pray this prayer." he said "pray in this manner." It was demonstrative, not commanded. It was not meant to be a litanous prayer.

He did recite a prayer that was written down for us to pray for all ages.

I don't believe this is true.

Is there any reason you can not pray the words that Jesus taught us all from the heart?

And have you ever prayed a psalm? The Lord is my shepard, i shalt not want?

as prayer? no. I've sung it.

Even Jesus prayed a psalm as He hung on the cross.

So there is nothing here for you to object to, really uphill, there just isn't anything in our prayer life that you can rationally be critical of.

sure.... I'm full of illogic an irational thought.

So Uphill Battle says that there's not something in scripture that says he should only rely on scripture -there's something else. Thus he needs something to OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE to say he should only use scripture.

you didn't really read what was said to you, did you?

you're so hell bent on making your point, that you're overlooking what people are saying, misrepresenting them, and being snide about it to boot.

that is NOT what I said. I wrote it earlier, and if you have problems comprehending, that is not my problem, but STOP misrepresenting what I said.

That's the basis of Protestantism! Illogic.

that is the basis of Montalban. Arrogance.

 

[holo]

You're not answering mine, so I don't see any reason to answer yours, you just go on asking.

You've not shown that Paul's particular direction on hair was cultural. Of course there were cultural things in his day - another of your many truisms.

I've told you why I believe they are cultural, and like I said, I'll be happy to elaborate on that if you want.

You may not agree with my conclusions, but you know what they are.

You've not answered several I've asked before you asked me that. All you did is say you're trying your best.

Actually, I did post the conflicing verses about the crucifixion. It's a long and untidy thread, so no suprise if you missed it. Here's the post;

Matt 27:44
In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Luke 23:39-41
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."[ /I]

Surely you can see why I see that as a "bible error"? Even if you don't agree?

But anyway, now you know a little about why I believe the bible is NOT flawless. How about letting me know why you think it is?

But anyway, yes, I am trying to answer your questions. OK, you don't think the answers are good enough. So be it. Is that a reason for you not to answer mine?

You've also not acknowledged your mistake about tithes which I evidenced from the Bible.

I obviously won't "acknowledge my mistake" when I don't actually believe I am mistaken. I acknowledge that I disagree with you on certain things, like tithing. Everybody can "evidence" pretty much anything from the bible. The point is how we interpret the bible. For example, SDAs can "evidence" all sorts of stuff about the sabbath - the question is whether or not they're reading the bible the right way.

 

[holo]

Are you admitting your reasons were circular, or not?

We are all "circular" in our reasoning, sooner or later. Sooner or later it boils down to assumption. For example, what you know about astronomy you know because you assume the astronomers and textbooks are trustworthy and knowledgable. Of course we have good reason to believe that they are trustworthy, but we still have to make the assumption.

In a way, all knowledge is just different levels of assumption. Many christians I meet, for example, believe the bible is flawless. When asked why, it turns out that they're just assuming it to be. Some people have studied the bible and other scriptures and history etc, and have better grounds for saying that the bible is flawless. Others come to a different conclusion. But most of them are biased to begin with; either they assume from the beginning that the bible is flawless, or they assume that it's full of disrepancies.

So I'm asking you why you believe the things you believe. If you believe, for example, that the Orthodox church is inerrant, why do you believe that? If you believe the bible is flawless, why do you believe that?

To repeat myself from an older post;
Do you believe you are 100% flawlessly correct about everything you believe and that you can't possibly change your mind? No? Well neither do I. It's no more complicated than that.

 

[ticker]

You've also not acknowledged your mistake about tithes which I evidenced from the Bible.

Wait a sec....do Orthodox believe you have to tithe?

 

[holo]

So Uphill Battle says that there's not something in scripture that says he should only rely on scripture -there's something else. Thus he needs something to OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE to say he should only use scripture.

Holo and Koey can't answer the challenge at all.

If the challenge is something like "prove the idea of Sola Scriptura" then allow me to inform you that I'm not a Sola Scriptura kind of guy

 

[ticker]

Everybody can "evidence" pretty much anything from the bible. The point is how we interpret the bible. For example, SDAs can "evidence" all sorts of stuff about the sabbath - the question is whether or not they're reading the bible the right way.

Preach it holo!

And what's great about Grace is that you don't need to be reading stuff the "right" way in order to be achieving spiritual advancement in your Christian walk.

Funnily enough though, that very liberating idea is precisely what gives you the right mindset with which you see the actual, over-arching message of scripture....(that we live by God's Grace-gift to us in Jesus, and not by rules)....and quite often, within the very same verses that legalists like to use to support their claims.

God's neat like that, isn't he?

 

[ticker]

you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.


...can't get over the title of this thread. Gets me every time.

Sounds like some late-night, infomercial announcer or something.

"You'll HATE this thread. I guaaaaarantee it!"

 

[holo]

Montalban,
I can try to elaborate a little more on why I believe the hair stuff is merely cultural;
first of all I think it's obvious, because in the "grand scheme of things", why should God be concerned or offended by the length of my hair? There are so many verses in the bible, especially in the NT, that talk about how God looks to the heart, how we should not judge according to outward appearance, how it doesn't make a difference to Him whether you drink wine or not, and indeed how all things are lawful to us. Not even circumcision makes a difference anymore in the new covenant (though it made a world of difference in the old), and in Christ (where we are) there isn't greek nor jew, not even man or woman - so how can there be... hair? See my point? It just doesn't fit in with the gospel of grace as I see it laid out in the bible. So it's pretty reasonable to conclude that this was just a cultural thing. It was important to them, of course, just like it would be important for churches today not sing worship in a heavy metal kind of way - it just collides with our culture. But it's not like God Himself has laid down some sort of universal and eternal rule that "thou shalt not play heavy metal" or "thou shalt not have long hair!" All in all, in the new covenant, God apparently isn't even offended that Paul quotes pagan philosophers to get his point across (how "biblical" (or "traditional", for that matter) is that?).

And furthermore, we know that in that time and place and culture, hair and head coverings were a big deal, and the temple prostitutes would shave their heads and so forth. In other words, context, and my understanding of the gospel and who God is and what He really cares about.

edit:
It also has to do, of course, with what I think the bible is - contrary to many of my fellow believers, I don't think the bible is meant to be some sort of guide book or rule book. It's more like a testament, a testimony. I think if it was meant to be a rule book, it would be written as a rule book. What do you say?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Darn, I thought of another when I was cleaning
the fireplace.

For years I have prayed this same prayer again
during prayer time.
Father please teach us to love your people
as you do.
And lately, past few years, please give us
(me and family) wisdom.

Guess I thought I'd be heard for my
many words.

I'd venture that you heard your own pryers, and gained what you'd asked for.

And that is the point, mostly, in prayer. Since He knows the word before it is formed on my lips, there is little point in praying, except to change me (us).
After all, He already knows what we all need.

One of my favorite, written down, repeated prayers is Psalm 90.

 

[benedictaoo]

oh, sure. Us memorialists will remember that.

Memorialists? I liked for you to be brought into the fullness of what that means, UpHill.

I feel it's inauthentic. (And I've never done a follow the bouncing ball prayer like that.)

That's because there is so much to Catholicism that you don't yet understand. It's authenticity will depend on each person and their relationship with the Lord.

The same can be said for any prayer. It's two way communication, you have to be authentic with God no matter what words you pray.

The words don't make or break you, it's your heart. That's what Jesus was teaching us. He wasn't condemning ppl who said certain words or how many times. He was condemning the ones whose heart was not into it, whose heart was far from Him.

For me, the prayers are beneficial because of the theology. Take St. Francis' prayer, go through this prayer and meditate on it because there is profound truth in it that is transforming.

Just go through it and meditate on it.

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

It has taken me a few years to fully get the impact and truth of this prayer.

It's another prayer teaching us of the Divine Mercy of God.

Take the first line, "Lord, make me an instrument of your peace"

Jesus is our High Priest who has rose from the dead who has blessed us with God's name, who has made our peace with Him and who brings us God's peace.

So we meditate on that, Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,

We all should pray this, we all should want to be able to bring the peace Jesus won for us to others, we all should be made an instrument of the peace of Jesus.

Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life

This prayer when said from the heart can change a person from being unholy into being holy. Why? The heart sees that God is mercy and we are made perfect by being merciful. Lord, make me an instrument of your peace... is a prayer from the heart.

Just think if everyone prayed this from the heart... the world would change. God would give us all the grace to change.

not remotely. Jesus didn't say "pray this prayer." he said "pray in this manner." It was demonstrative, not commanded. It was not meant to be a litanous prayer.

Well, that is your interpretation that you accept from the invisible lose bodied magisterium of Protestantism, of Protestant tradition that you were taught.

But there is certainly nothing wrong with praying the words of Jesus, is there? No, of course not and for a sola scripturist, there isn't anything in scripture that says you can't pray his very words, so why not pray them?

Again, it is a prayer that when one meditates on it, it can have a life changing impact if prayed from the heart.

as prayer? no. I've sung it.

So singing can't be praying? Umm, the bible says we are to make a joyful noise unto the Lord and Augustine said when we sing, we pray twice.

I really don't think there is a whole lot of merit to be found in this criticism. I'm sure many Protestants don't have an issue with praying in song (it's called Praise and Worship and it's a prayer none the less) a psalm or even singing it as a prayer.

If you sung it, then you prayed even more deeply, as long as your heart was in it.

If you have read scripture, any verse Uphill, and entered into the presence of God, allowed God to speak to you in His word then you have used scripture as a prayer. It's called meditation.

sure.... I'm full of illogic an irational thought.

Okay... deflection... alright.

Now back to the point. Jesus prayed a psalm from the cross. So right there. There shouldn't be any further criticism or debate.

"My God, my God why have you abandon me..." it was from a psalm. So that pretty much ends this debate.

 

[Montalban]

I obviously won't "acknowledge my mistake" when I don't actually believe I am mistaken. I acknowledge that I disagree with you on certain things, like tithing.

That's not the point. If you disagree with me on tithing as opposed to the fact I've demonstrated from the Bible it existed. You said it didn't. I demonstrated this. You should admit your mistake. Then you argue against yourself by saying that anything can be interpreted from the Bible, which if true undermines your argument that it's not in the Bible anyway.

Everybody can "evidence" pretty much anything from the bible. The point is how we interpret the bible. For example, SDAs can "evidence" all sorts of stuff about the sabbath - the question is whether or not they're reading the bible the right way.

So you're back to a self-annhilating argument. You say tithing's not in the Bible, but anyone can interpret the Bible to mean anything, which means it can be interpreted as being in favour of tithing!

You have perhaps the worse arguments I've seen here so far... I don't mean to be rude but you demand I show evidence from the Bible then you reject the Bible as you so wish anyway. You've no point in your objections other than to continually repeat your opinion.

By that means - if I were to assume you were right - no one could ever know for sure anything about the Bible so all interpretations are equally valid which makes your objections pointless.

 

[Montalban]

Preach it holo!

The fact that several people can disagree doesn't mean all are incorrect.

Holo argues both that he is right, but that everyone can't know what to believe, when they posit evidence!

You seem to agree with this self-refuting approach to truth.

And what's great about Grace is that you don't need to be reading stuff the "right" way in order to be achieving spiritual advancement in your Christian walk.

SO Moslems have 'grace'?

Funnily enough though, that very liberating idea is precisely what gives you the right mindset with which you see the actual, over-arching message of scripture....(that we live by God's Grace-gift to us in Jesus, and not by rules)....and quite often, within the very same verses that legalists like to use to support their claims.

God's neat like that, isn't he?

God never taught confusion, division and everyone doing whatever they feel like.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,
I can try to elaborate a little more on why I believe the hair stuff is merely cultural;

What's the point. You say everyone can read into the Bible whatever they like. Why your interpretation of the Bible then is more valid than mine, if we can both eqaully interpret the Bible, is something known only to you.

If God were so unconcerned, I expect that this then is another part of the Bible that you can discard. Paul was obviously wrong to mention it, and you're right. He doesn't say it should only be for his time, and in point of fact he argued against 'cutlural' things such as circumcision. Where Paul says "Do this only for now" I don't know. I've not seen it. You again offer no proof from the Bible... which you don't really believe anyway.

Your whole confused stance is one of contradiction and self-annihalating argument.

 

[Montalban]

you didn't really read what was said to you, did you?

you're so hell bent on making your point, that you're overlooking what people are saying, misrepresenting them, and being snide about it to boot.

that is NOT what I said. I wrote it earlier, and if you have problems comprehending, that is not my problem, but STOP misrepresenting what I said.

You said you didn't just rely on Scripture to know that you should only rely upon scripture. I don't recall you saying what this other thing was. But what you've said is just illogical anyway.

that is the basis of Montalban. Arrogance.

No. You only have to open your eyes to the illogic of the arguments presented from Protestants.

Holo argues against Orthodox traditions but then says anyone can interpret anything out of the Bible anyway, thus refuting his own arguments against Orthodoxy - to which he offers no proofs from the Bible - 'cause he doesn't believe its infallible anyway - based on mistakes he can't evidence either.

Sunlover says the Bible is infallible, but only it is. Yet there's evidence from the Bible that Paul relied on oral teachings. In fact it's logical that what he taught himself he taught orally before he wrote it down. THus it was fallible when he spoke it, but infallible when he wrote it down.

You yourself continaully appeal to incredulity and make emotive statements, referring to some other evidence you've spoken about somewhere else.

These arguments, confused as they are, are the result of Protestantism. Once you remove yourself from the Church Jesus established you can come up with all sorts of strange, novel, and contradictory beliefs.

That I alert you to this, you call arrogant. I actually call stubborness in the face of truth willful arrogance.

If you can cite any evidence to show why you rely only on scripture please do so.

 

[Montalban]

I'm still waiting for any Protestant here, as they say they value Scripture to show where they should only rely on Scripture.

UphillBattle both argues it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you have faith, but argues against tradition. Why? It shouldn't matter.

It either does, or it doesn't!