Assume you are wrong.

[Uphill Battle]

Its implied.

I.e., "Nowhere in Scripture does it say...." or pithy little openers like that.

Also, your antagonism to any and all organized faith groups speaks volumes. You may not explicitly state it. you may not even consciencously think it, but subconsiously you have to believe something like this.

oh, come now.

I have said numerous times that I KNOW I don't have it all right. It is not implied, explicit, or otherwise, that I belive without a doubt that I have full knowledge of every truth.

That being said, you go on to misrepresent what Sola Scriptura purports to do.... avoid things that scripture is mute on. Let me tell you, if the communion of saints was in the bible, I'd believe it. It isn't there! In fact, Paul calls all the believers saints, not just a select few as decided upon by the vatican. So, if we are to commune with saints, I'll stick with the ones here on earth, they at least I KNOW I can speak with.

Everyone argues from their point of view. Numerous of my beliefs/opinions has changed based on arguments on the other side that were both convincing, and sound with scripture.

You do not have such a luxury, however, if it isn't held by the RCC... you are not allowed to believe it!

 

[Benedicta00]

no doubt. Holding the personal opinion that "my church has everything right, therefore everyone else is wrong" certainly puts a crimp in the matter.

Catholics don't assume you have everything wrong... you don't, you have a good many things right.. like the virgin birth, like the risen Lord, like the Christian bible, etc, etc...

Know where you got those truths from? Take a wild guess?

You do have a probelm with the concept of God leaving us visable tangible actual Church. Why?

Is there any particular reason God would give us His Divine Revelation but not give us an objective way of learning it that is not subject to error?
.

 

[ScottBot]

oh, come now.

I have said numerous times that I KNOW I don't have it all right. It is not implied, explicit, or otherwise, that I belive without a doubt that I have full knowledge of every truth.

That being said, you go on to misrepresent what Sola Scriptura purports to do.... avoid things that scripture is mute on. Let me tell you, if the communion of saints was in the bible, I'd believe it. It isn't there! In fact, Paul calls all the believers saints, not just a select few as decided upon by the vatican. So, if we are to commune with saints, I'll stick with the ones here on earth, they at least I KNOW I can speak with.

Everyone argues from their point of view. Numerous of my beliefs/opinions has changed based on arguments on the other side that were both convincing, and sound with scripture.

You do not have such a luxury, however, if it isn't held by the RCC... you are not allowed to believe it!

So, if you admit that you could be wrong, then you could be wrong on what you accuse me of being wrong on. Right?

 

[Uphill Battle]

So, if you admit that you could be wrong, then you could be wrong on what you accuse me of being wrong on. Right?

absolutely. I may be wrong.

 

[sunlover1]

When I asked:

John 3:3
3 In reply Jesus declared,
"I tell you the truth,
no one can see the kingdom of God
unless he is born again."


If one is born again, and can see the kingdom
of God, are they not "in communion" too?

You replied:

Is someone who professes to being born again automatically so?

Is this just a red herring?
That has nothing to do with it.
I said someone who is born again.
If one IS born again, according to God's
criteria, are they not in communion?

Quote:

John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you,
He that heareth my word,
and believeth on him that sent me,
hath everlasting life,
and shall not come into condemnation;
but is passed from death unto life.

Indeed. Yet your reading seems to assume a meaning that is actually absent. A Muslim thinks he believes on the same God, he may well have heard the gospel. Has he salvation despite his error?

The verse said one who hears my word and believes on Christ.

Modern American readings are far too focused on some passages and blithely ignore others. Anyone would think from US Evangelicals that it is enough to be liberated from Egypt and that entering the promised land is an unnecessary frill

The verses I posted are plain.
It's by Christ and the cross that we
enter in.
Your definitions exclude me.
God's don't.

 

[ScottBot]

absolutely. I may be wrong.

Well, hey, its a start. I admit that I may be abrasive and argue just for the sake of arguing.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Well, hey, its a start. I admit that I may be abrasive and argue just for the sake of arguing.

me too, scott.... subtle as a sledgehammer.

 

[PassthePeace1]

You do not have such a luxury, however, if it isn't held by the RCC... you are not allowed to believe it!

I prefer the more positive spin, the Church is protecting us from error.

Peace be with you...Pam

 

[NewToLife]

Is this just a red herring?
That has nothing to do with it.
I said someone who is born again.
If one IS born again, according to God's
criteria, are they not in communion?

Who determines who these people are? It seems to me that scripture gives us many ways to determine if we truly fit these criteria and those tests do not end with 'do I feel I believe', in fact scripture asks us many hard questions. How many of us actually consider our answers I wonder.

The verse said one who hears my word and believes on Christ.

Actually it doesnt and even if it did the point was that it's possible to misunderstand. Scripture is quite clear that some who think they know Christ are in fact unknown to Him.

The verses I posted are plain.

Indeed, yet sometimes we reveal more in our choice of what to leave out than in what we include.

It's by Christ and the cross that we
enter in.

That cross, you are called to take it up.

Your definitions exclude me.
God's don't.

I dont exclude you at all, If you are excluded it has little to nothing to do with my position. God saves who He will.

In the end those who reject the authority of the church must realise that disciple and discipline share the same root. People need to ask if they can truly be a disciple yet accept no discipline?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I prefer the more positive spin, the Church is protecting us from error.

Peace be with you...Pam

and then you can sit back, relax, never consider if anything you are told is true or not.

A fine luxury. One that I reject wholeheartedly.

 

[ScottBot]

and then you can sit back, relax, never consider if anything you are told is true or not.

A fine luxury. One that I reject wholeheartedly.

You make it sound as if we are fobidden from asking questions. THat is positively NOT the case.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You make it sound as if we are fobidden from asking questions. THat is positively NOT the case.

why would you need to, given that the church cannot be wrong? You'd save yourself alot of time by just sitting quietly in the pew, wouldn't you?

 

[Benedicta00]

and then you can sit back, relax, never consider if anything you are told is true or not.

A fine luxury. One that I reject wholeheartedly.

We aren't asked to never question... Our "Faith seeks understanding."

But you will never understand anything if your mind is closed. If a catholic is ever going to make it-- he must be open minded.

Like I said, if some folks could learn how to get out of thier own way.

What we are asked to do when it comes to faith and morels is just obey.

We do not have to understand it fully, we do not have to even agree, and we certainly don't have to like it, but we are ask to obey and through our humilty which is what obedience is, UpHill, God will grant us the wisdom we need to understand thus fully accept. .

 

[Benedicta00]

why would you need to, given that the church cannot be wrong? You'd save yourself alot of time by just sitting quietly in the pew, wouldn't you?

Because faith seeks understanding. .

 

[ScottBot]

why would you need to, given that the church cannot be wrong? You'd save yourself alot of time by just sitting quietly in the pew, wouldn't you?

Im not sure I appreciate your insinuation that Catholics are just a bunch of mindless drones being lead through life with a chain around our neck. There is something liberating in knowing that the things that are made into doctrine have gone through roughtly 2,000 years of scrutiny. You call it mindlessness. I call it trust. After all, God is a God of order and discipline and He absolutely abhors anarchy.

I see it this way. I am playing ball with my kids in the front yard. The ball accidently rolls into the street and my 5 year old boy goes chasing after it. I see a car coming quickly down the street and yell "Stop!!!!" to my son, so loudly that he freezes in his tracks and begins crying. Do I expect my son to do as I say? You bet your fanny I do. I have the maturity, perspective, experience, and presence of mind to know that he is in grave danger and I have a responsibility to safeguard him. He is a kid and doesn't yet know about all of the pitfalls that could cost him his life. I do, I've been there, done that. Now, after the danger has subsided, I have an obligation to explain to him what happened so that he doesn't think I was repremaniding him for wrongdoing, but rather saving him from danger. This way, he trusts me. Now, if he had chosen to ignore me and debate about it while still running out into the street, what do you think might happen? How frustrating and painful is it for me as a parent to see my child continually putting himself in harms way out of stubborn ignorance and pride? I certainly don't want to see him hurt needlessly, but eventually have to expect that one day he will probably by hit by a car because of his lack of perpective. I see the church as this loving parent who is trying to safeguard me from pitfalls and oncoming cars. It has far more experience than I do in recognizing these dangers, and has the perspective of seeing when I am putting myself needlessly in harms way. It cries for me to stop, and is willing to explain to me what the danger is. That is why I trust it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Im not sure I appreciate your insinuation that Catholics are just a bunch of mindless drones being lead through life with a chain around our neck. There is something liberating in knowing that the things that are made into doctrine have gone through roughtly 2,000 years of scrutiny. You call it mindlessness. I call it trust. After all, God is a God of order and discipline and He absolutely abhors anarchy.

I am not insinuating that Catholics are mindless drones. (any more than some in the bapitst pews are, or the anglican, or the lutheren... etc....) there are mindless drones in every church.

What I meant was, why would you bother questioning anything? You said it isn't forbidden, now I never asserted it was. I just wonder what the point would be to do so... if your church already has everything right, then questioning anything would be time consuming and fruitless, would it not?

It was not an accusasion of mindless following, just an observation that if it's true that RCC has everything right, questioning anything would be kind of silly... so why not just sit back and relax, let them sort it out?

 

[ScottBot]

I am not insinuating that Catholics are mindless drones. (any more than some in the bapitst pews are, or the anglican, or the lutheren... etc....) there are mindless drones in every church.

What I meant was, why would you bother questioning anything? You said it isn't forbidden, now I never asserted it was. I just wonder what the point would be to do so... if your church already has everything right, then questioning anything would be time consuming and fruitless, would it not?

It was not an accusasion of mindless following, just an observation that if it's true that RCC has everything right, questioning anything would be kind of silly... so why not just sit back and relax, let them sort it out?

See my further explanation above.

 

[Uphill Battle]

See my further explanation above.

right... but that still doesn't explain why you would question what you trust as perfect.

You stated it's ok to question, again I ask why you would bother?

 

[NewToLife]

You stated it's ok to question, again I ask why you would bother?

I think the answer lies in the difference between questioning something because you wish to understand and questioning something because you wish to challenge it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think the answer lies in the difference between questioning something because you wish to understand and questioning something because you wish to challenge it.

Every understanding that I have, has come from challenging what it proposes. Including the divinity of Christ. Including the Existance of God. Everything. I am prepared to challenge everything until it is proven true, rendered false, or undeterminable. I fail to see what is bad about that. If I wasn't prepared to challenge, or if I did not, i would not be a Christian today.