Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
While I may, or not, have been able to use a more perfect word, I honestly believe you knew what I meant. Infallible because it is created of God. So, for the purpose of a rock, the one I picked up in the driveway was a perfect, infallible rock of God. Inerrant Bible, ok, I also like the solid unchanging rock.Not really, For example, I'll borrow an analogy from apologist Karl Keating at Catholicanswers.com:
"A rock is never infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision—or the wrong decision. In fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking.
The same can be said of a book. No book, not even the Bible, is capable of making a decision. This means it would be wrong to say that the Bible is either infallible or fallible—such terms should not be used about it or about any other book."
So again, I stand on the proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is inerrant. In its teaching, a particular book may contain truth or may contain error; most likely it will teach some of each. The one exception is the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts (properly understood, of course) is true and therefore without error.
The church being born on pentecost was in it's infancy growing up in the years to come through the inspired apostles and their writings. In the early years the various locations of the Lord's church exchanged the different epistles, to a certain extent, if not wholly. The major difference being the early Christians had the apostles breaking the bread of life to them directly. I can see the compilation of the Bible being a must, as the early church expanded, or grew rapidly. That compilation was brought about and endorsed by God. I say that because He states that it is His desire that all men be saved, if that's indeed the case, His written will or how one can be saved must be available. While the early Christians and people of that time may have had the capability of gleaning enough from the OT for salvation, I could not. Furthermore, there's at least one example, Divinely recorded for us, in which it appears the OT was not sufficient for salvation, at least to the Etheopian eunuch, for he did not understand. It is my opinion one cannot glean the entire gospel of Jesus solely from the Old Testament. Luckily, that has zero applicable doctrine, salvation wise, to me.I am very familiar with these passages sola scripturists use to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s word, for I too used them before my conversion to Catholicism. let's look at these verses more closely.
In verse 2 Tim. 3:15.... Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
I would disagree that scripture is not mandatory for salvation. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. ōphelimos is also "advantages" just because scripture may not say it is exclusive, does not mean it isn't. I believe it is, beyond a shadow of doubt, because through the scripture I am exartizō, or fully equiped. I am familiar with "pasa graphe", I also believe that if I "needed" any further scripture God would have provided such, not just to me but to everyone. The God I worship is the God who is in control, totally. Just as He was when dealing with the PharaohIn 2 Tim. 3:16.... this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Also, are you familiar familiar with the Greek phrase "pasa graphe"?
I disagree totally, the greek word for "man" is "anthrōpos" meaning human being. The greek word for "of God" is "theos" meaning the supreme Divinity. In the New Testament there are no distinctions made, greek or otherwise, between the laos. We all are believers only. The idea that there's some that are "higher up" or "more holy" than others is completely unbiblical and manmade. That very "man made" idea could easily be the shot heard around the denominational world.In 2 Tim. 3:17..... St.Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church.
I agree that the artios is not talking about the scripture. A fair translation is "....the human being from the supreme Divinity may be artios or complete, fit, perfect or suitable". Clergy is a concept/term foriegn to the Bible. The New Testament hierarchy of the church was each church being completely autonomous. The terms bishop and elders were used interchangeably in the NT. Each church had it's elders or bishops and deacons as offices and the Bible gives the qualifications of each. This fact is precisely why the epistles were "church specific" as were the warnings in Revelation. Why change the hierarchy of the NT church? Why create offices that were not present in the NT church? If the footprint of the NT church had not changed, I dare say Catholicism would not exist today.Further in vs. 17 St.Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So I fail to see how adhereant's to sola scriptura can use this verse in theit arguement for sola scriptura.
Pretty sure, if you beleive in the one Triune God. However, where we disagree is in the doctrine of 'sola scriptrua', the belief that the Bible is sufficient as a sole rule of faith. For nowhere in the Bible does it state such a thing. One of the main reasons for my conversion to the Catholic faith besides the history of the early church (pre-reformation history of Christianty)..... was the fact that if sola scriptura is the correct doctrine, and that the Bible is self-sufficient word of God, wouldn’t everyone get the same interpretation from it, and wouldn't there not be thousands of different Protestant/non-denominational chueches,sects, and home churches? This thread is a perfect example. Look at all the dis-agreements amongst bible alone believers on what they believe a certain passage means or not means. All supposedly under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 16:18 Christ states that He will build His church.... The act of calling His church the "holy catholic" church does, to some extent, take the focus off Jesus. Colossians 1:14-20 Says it is God's desire regarding ALL things whether in heaven or on Earth, that Jesus would have THE prōteuō or influence/preeminence. Jesus died for the church and it should carry at least a Biblical name, preferably a name denoting ownership. It is God's will.I agree, the one visable Holy Catholic Church. (Matthew 16:18.)
No, I gave you a date. Paul said the process had already began when he wrote 2nd Thessalonians. I have already tendered a rather lengthy post on the falling away, only to have it deleted. Not to mention a reprimand by the clearly biased admin of this site. The world is in dire need of people who are willing to stand up for the TRUTH, this site is one avenue by which I attemp to do such, via scripture I might add. The offer still stands to take this discussion to a "private conversation". The Bible specifically warns of the falling away, I believe, not by a preponderance of the evidence but beyond a shadow of doubt it occurred. Any Christain family is only one generation away from apostasy and we are approx. 2k years removed from the day of pentecost. Small incremental steps over time and there you go. It is a proven fact, we are way more likely to believe a lie, that's been repeated several times, than the truth we've only heard once.You have yet to give an exact date of when the Catholic Chuch supposedly apostatized. If it is your belief this happened in the early centuries of its existence, could you explain to me how an entire Church could apostatize, unless every single member of it agreed to do so, and all apostatized at the same point in time? Could you show using the "bible only", the verse or verses that prove it? Again, as I stated above, you have yet to give a date when this is supposed to have happen. So I'll ask once again, could you give me a firm date of when this great historical event took place?
My New Testament church did not put the church ahead of scripture ever. The scripture and or epistles told the early church exactly how it and it's members were to conduct themselves. It is still our only God given direction today.I'll put it to you this way. (with the help of Catholicanswers.cm) As Catholics, we put the Church before the Bible because the Church existed first and compiled the Bible. The authority of the Bible depends on that of the Church. Then we use the Bible to prove the Church; we use it not as an inspired volume, but merely as a historical document. From the Gospels as historical documents we learn that Christ founded a Church, but the authority of the Gospels as inspired writings rests on the word of the Church.
The church is the clay and the God/scriptures are the potter in my New Testament church.Though collections of sacred writings, varying in extent, existed in the various local Churches of Christendom, the canon or official list of Scripture was only compiled by the Church toward the end of the fourth century—at Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397, whence it was sent to Rome for confirmation in 419. The Bible may be called the notebook of the Church, and she has always claimed to be the guardian, exponent, and interpreter of it. . . .
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: - Romans 16:25-26Real man? sure. Inspired by God? Well, let me ask you this, with the exception of the author of the book of Revelation....St.John, could you show (from the bible alone) where any N.T. writer explicitly claims that he himself is writing at the direct mandate of God?
I believe the Sinner’s Prayer is just another way of the Bible saying to “Repent.”
A Biblical Case For Repentance:
At the heart, I believe the Bible teaches that "Repentance" means, "Asking God for forgiveness" (Which of course naturally then leads to the "fruits of repentance", i.e. obedience to the Lord):
Important Note: While I may believe "Repentance" does involve to a certain degree a "change of mind" (like a person changing their mind about their old life of sin), I do not think "Repentance" exclusively means a “change of mind.”
"Asking God for forgiveness of sin" can either refer to: The "Sinner's Prayer" (Initial Salvation) (Romans 10:13), and or the seasoned believer "Confessing one's sin" (Continued Salvation) (See 1 John 1:9, 1 John 2:1).
Anyways, here are my ten points using Scripture showing that "repentance" means "asking God for forgiveness of sin.”
#1. Acts 2:38,
The New Living Translation says in Acts 2:38 to "repent of your sins."
Douay Reheims says in Acts 2:38 to "Do penance."
New Life Version says in Acts 2:38 to "Be sorry for your sins"
#2. Luke 17:3 says, "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." This doesn't make any sense if "repent" means believe in Jesus (as some teach) or to have a change of mind about sin (as others teach) or to exclusively forsake sin. Yes, we are to forsake sin as a part of repentance but that comes later after repentance (Which is to ask God for forgiveness of our sin). For how can we reconcile with a brother if we do not say we are sorry vs. just going on about life as if we did nothing wrong?
#3. Jesus said in Matthew 12:41 that the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. If you were to turn to Jonah chapter 3, you would be able to see in Jonah 3:6-10 that the King of the Ninevites had told his people to:
(a) Cry out to God (i.e. Repentance) (See Jonah 3:8).
(b) Turn from their sins or evil ways (i.e. The Natural Fruits of Repentance).
#4. Matthew 3:6 (which then lines up with Matthew 3:8). Also, in Mark 1:4-5, it says John preached the "baptism of repentance" for the remission of sins (verse 4), and it then defines this "baptism of repentance" by saying they confessed their sins when they were baptized (verse 5).
#5. We see in Acts of the Apostles 8:22 a clear example of Peter telling Simon to "repent" of his wickedness in trying to pay for the Holy Spirit. Peter is telling Simon to make a prayer towards God. For Peter says that he should pray that God might forgive him. In other words, Peter is telling Simon to repent of a one time event of wickedness by way of prayer to GOD. This only makes sense if "repent" means to "ask for forgiveness."
#6. Ezekiel 14:6 says,
"Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols;" Repent makes the most sense here if a person is asking God for forgiveness by way of prayer instead of a person just believing in God. Naturally a person believes in God as their Savior if they are planning on forsaking their idols.
#7. We see repentance is the topic of discussion in Luke 15 (Luke 15:6) (Luke 15:10); This is then followed up by the "Parable of the Prodigal Son" with the son desiring to be reconciled with his father. We learn the WAY the Prodigal Son desired to be reconciled with his father when he said,
"I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants." (Luke 15:18-19).
In other words, the Prodigal Son was seeking forgiveness. This ties into the point of repentance in Luke 15:6 and Luke 15:10.
#8. Luke 10:13 says,
"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." This rules out the theory that repentance is exclusively forsaking sin. Granted, forsaking sin always follow true repentance (Asking God for forgiveness of one's sins) but forsaking sin is not repentance. The word "repented" here is describing a one time event because they "repented", sitting in sackcloth and ashes. In Jonah 3:6 we learn that the King of Nineveh sat in sackcloth and ashes. In Jonah 3:8, the King of Nineveh tells people to put on sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God (i.e. repentance): and then turn from their evil way (i.e. the fruits of repentance).
#9. John the Baptist says we are to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:8). Fruits are deeds (or obedience to God). How can repentance be the same thing as the fruit? Is the fruit the same thing as the tree?
#10. Jeremiah 8:6 says, "I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle." Here we see the word "repented of wickedness" tied with the words, "What have I done?" This is an acknowledgement of one's sin to God as a part of asking His forgiveness.
Notable Additional Verses that Deal with Repentance
(But They Do Not Use The Word "Repent" or "Repentance"):
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13).
13 "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:13-14).
Proverbs 28:13 says whosoever confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy.
Being a missionary, I'm trilingual. My original language was Dutch, then I moved to the States and I spent most of my time in Florida and now here in South America, it is all Spanish. One thing you learn is that hardly word has a perfect translation, unless it might be a physical word like "Microphone." You are constantly dealing with shades of meaning. So, each word has to be looked at in the original meaning and how it was used to really get a good feel for it.
We need to look at the Greek or Hebrew word that is translated into repentance. For instance most of the time in the New Testament, the Greek word is METANOIA, which all it means is: "Change of mind." The problem with the word is that many times people have taken the meaning of the word out of the Latin Vulgate, instead of the original Greek and then came to a totally different meaning, like turning from sin. METANOIA does not mean that. A good way to illustrate this is Genesis 6:6, where God repents. Of course God does not turn from sin. So, there we would have to look at the Hebrew word that was used.
On the issue of whether a prayer is a requirement for salvation, look at Acts 10:44... The Greek word consistently used in the New Testament for "believe" in the sense of saving faith is: "PISTEUO" which means to trust, to depend upon, or to rely upon.
Being a missionary, I'm trilingual. My original language was Dutch, then I moved to the States and I spent most of my time in Florida and now here in South America, it is all Spanish. One thing you learn is that hardly word has a perfect translation, unless it might be a physical word like "Microphone." You are constantly dealing with shades of meaning. So, each word has to be looked at in the original meaning and how it was used to really get a good feel for it.
We need to look at the Greek or Hebrew word that is translated into repentance. For instance most of the time in the New Testament, the Greek word is METANOIA, which all it means is: "Change of mind." The problem with the word is that many times people have taken the meaning of the word out of the Latin Vulgate, instead of the original Greek and then came to a totally different meaning, like turning from sin. METANOIA does not mean that. A good way to illustrate this is Genesis 6:6, where God repents. Of course God does not turn from sin. So, there we would have to look at the Hebrew word that was used.
On the issue of whether a prayer is a requirement for salvation, look at Acts 10:44... The Greek word consistently used in the New Testament for "believe" in the sense of saving faith is: "PISTEUO" which means to trust, to depend upon, or to rely upon.
Sorry, I don’t believe we have to look to the original languages whereby we have to waste our whole lives trying to figure out what God said (having no trustworthy Word) vs. getting busy with loving God and others. I believe God preserved His Word with the King James Bible. I just read the context and that is what makes sense of the actual word used for repent (and it’s related words).
For example: Many think there is just one meaning for the word “repent” in the Bible, but they simply have not done the study on the word “repent.” Here is a snapshot from my study.
Also, if you were to look at my biblical case for repentance, I use the CONTEXT to define the word and not just some dictionary by scholars who think they are experts in the original languages. What definition or meaning makes the most sense with the context? That is how you determine the meaning of the word. It’s not by some original languages dictionary. Yes, they can be helpful sometimes, but Jesus said to beware of the scribes and not to implicitly trust them. The scribes are those who tran-scribe the Scriptures. The scholars are the scribes of our day.
Anyways, you did not refute what I said using the Bible itself in the English language. If what you say is true, then the context would not make any sense. It would be reading a sentence as gibberish nonsense. But if you believe God’s Word must be decoded from some ancient dead language, then prove your case that is how God’s people understood God’s Word. I see God communicating to His people in languages that they understood.
Well, it's similar in any change of language. Context will give you a huge part of the meaning of a word. But it's not totally sufficient.
You said:The word "repent" is a good example. If you take the meaning from an English dictionary, you're missing a huge part of what it means. For one there are different original words that are used in the Tanagh (OT) and New Testament.
You said:Just like in Greek, there are different words that are used to describe the word "love." You don't want to mix them up. You might end up with not what the original really says. For that reason, I would think it would be a good idea for Christians to both study Hebrew and Greek. (I mean Jewish orthodox children all learn to read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew).
You said:Study the originals. Reading a translation can be good, but it's sort of like watching black and white television, when the film was made in color.
In just 4 posts - you are 'on the rack' with KJVO...
We have a wide range of opinions here, some harsh, many wise, a melting pot of diverse opinion mostly fueled by good intent but not always inspired.
Welcome to the forum...
Yes repent means change, not just oops, sorry until next time.
Yes repent means change, not just oops, sorry until next time.
Why would the KJV be the only version of the Bible to be trusted .... when it's an English translation ... and vast numbers of Christians don't speak English ?I believe the King James Bible is my final Word of authority and I have been defending that within this thread.
So I take it to mean you are saying that seeing I hold to the doctrine of Divine Preservation of God’s Word that I am somehow causing our friend either physical or mental suffering in someway. Just because I hold to a particular belief in the Bible, and I am passionate about that belief like you may be for your beliefs in the Bible does not mean I am seeking to cause them physical or mental suffering. For have you never defended beliefs of your own with a passion? Does not disagreement between beliefs lead to a divide sometimes? But should it change our love? Does that mean we truly are causing physical and mental suffering for those who do not agree with a truth we find to be biblical? I imagine some beliefs that are not biblical can cause a mental distress or anxiety to a degree, but I would not come right out and say that such a group of people are doing so (unless they are blatantly justifying known sin). I strive to point to the weakness in the belief itself and not the person or individual that is merely an opinion that is not tied to the belief itself.
Anyways, if you disagree, we can simply agree to disagree in love and respect and move on. But I just don’t think your statement was exactly true or nice, my friend. Not all King James Only folk are the same. There are some who can come across as very unloving and others who are loving and yet strive to speak the truth in love. While I am not perfect, I strive to be perfect in loving all the brethren (even if we may not agree on all doctrines).
In any event, peace be unto you in the Lord Jesus Christ, and may your day be greatly blessed.
Why would the KJV be the only version of the Bible to be trusted .... when it's an English translation ... and vast numbers of Christians don't speak English ?
Yes we must first regret ever being protective of the sorry will of man and the world we have made in it's image, or else we wouldn't reject it and move away, feeling regret we ever put our will ahead of the will of God but joy now at being outcasts within this society we made in our old image.Saying we are sorry is the first step.
Yes we must first regret ever being protective of the sorry will of man and the world we have made in it's image, or else we wouldn't reject it and move away, feeling regret we ever put our will ahead of the will of God but joy now at being outcasts within this society we made in our old image.
I say call it what you will. If you reject the will of man over the will of God, the job is done. It is finished. God forgives the minute we put His will first. So now people who have rejected the old ways can focus on what Jesus' true gospel was, that God would be returning to rid the world of the governance of man and Himself rule. It is about Him first, not us. Too bad things got diverted back onto what is in it for us, our will more important to build a religion on than God's.It’s more than regret, friend.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?