Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

[kepha31]

Your welcome.

But here again, my seminary and Greek still places me at odds with the rulings of the Council of Trent, and certain Catholic doctrines.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Francis Beckwith former President of the Evangelical Theological Society: Interview

"...Then I read the Council of Trent, which some Protestant friends had suggested I do. What I found was shocking. I found a document that had been nearly universally misrepresented by many Protestants, including some friends.

I do not believe, however, that the misrepresentation is the result of purposeful deception. But rather, it is the result of reading Trent with Protestant assumptions and without a charitable disposition.

For example, Trent talks about the four causes of justification, which correspond somewhat to Aristotle’s four causes. None of these causes is the work of the individual Christian. For, according to Trent, God’s grace does all the work. However, Trent does condemn “faith alone,” but what it means is mere intellectual assent without allowing God’s grace to be manifested in one’s actions and communion with the Church. This is why Trent also condemns justification by works.

I am convinced that the typical “Council of Trent” rant found on anti-Catholic websites is the Protestant equivalent of the secular urban legend that everyone prior to Columbus believed in a flat earth.
Francis Beckwith Interview

 

[Wolf_Says]

It is a pity to me that they lack such integrity as to admit that they actually have little regard for the Bible and, instead, have a firm and unwavering faith in the pronouncements of their Magisterium.

You and I read in the Bible that God said .........."Do not bow down to any graven image".

As soon as you say that to a Catholic believer "YOU" are then the problem for telling them what God said. You see, in their mind and thinking, we are the problem but all we are messengers. They can not see God, or insult God or be rude and abusive to Him, but they can to YOU.

The both of you......really just continue to show your ignorance.

As Catholics, we believe the Bible is complete and without error. It is the written word of God, that was written by the Holy Spirit, and then compiled and declared Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th Century.

You are confusing "without error" and "authoritative".

Protestants have a very weird sense of authority. You guys hold to the belief that the Bible is the supreme authority, only under God. And, as recently shown to us by Major1 in his post #356, you always go to the Bible in regards to disagreements.

This is not how authority works, nor is it even what the Bible says.

Authority works as a Ladder, and it is an up or down chain.

Protestants, obviously, do not agree with the Authority of the Catholic Church, yet claim the Bible is supreme Authority.

The Bible was given to you by the Catholic Church, compiled, and declared as Sacred Scripture at the end of the 4th century. Without this, you would not have a Bible.
Without the Catholic Church, the scriptures would not have been preserved and copied.

So, according to Protestants, the chain of Authority goes God ----> Bible, yet completely skips the tool used by God to compile it.

For Catholics, our chain goes something like this, God ----> Church ----> Bible.

This is where you believe we don't hold the Bible in high regards or as without error. We most certainly do. We hold the Bible to be authoritative, because the Church started by Jesus Christ tells us that it is authoritative and without error.

Why do you believe the Bible to be without error? Who told you it was? Who told that person? Trace it far enough back, and it leads right back to the Catholic Church.

Protestants, essentially, take the Catholic Church's word that the Bible is the written word of God and is without error, and then claim that the Catholic Church is wrong on almost everything else. What?

@Major1, if you believe that God meant all statues, then please explain to me these verses, after God had gave Moses the 10 commandments:

The Statue of the Bronze Serpent, Numbers 21:4-9

 

[Major1]

God is ALWAYS correct


I have seen over the past few weeks you being proved wrong about your view of what scripture teaches, yet you refuse to change your view. I suspect because you think your view is correct.



Following your example, I would talk down to the person, show them how I think their view is wrong, insist my view is correct, and say it with all due respect


No, I shake my head in disbelief on how hypocritical some people can be with no self awareness on how they are behaving.

QUOTE]

You said...............
"I have seen over the past few weeks you being proved wrong about your view of what scripture teaches, yet you refuse to change your view. I suspect because you think your view is correct."

That is a very ambiguous comment. Will you please post the comment # and what was said so that we can discuss what I am wrong about in the Scriptures.


You said.......................
"Following your example, I would talk down to the person, show them how I think their view is wrong, insist my view is correct, and say it with all due respect:.

NO SIR. That is not what I said. I said that when we talk one with another over theology, what the Bible says is the correct view.

You said..................
"That when two PROTESTANTS have a disagreement the Bible is always correct"

NO SIR, Agin that is NOT what I said. I said......."that when two people have a disagreement".

Why do you have to say things I did not say so as to make your argument look better than it is.

Why can you not just discuss these issues civilly and intellectually without the twisting and false hoods????

 

[Major1]

The both of you......really just continue to show your ignorance.

As Catholics, we believe the Bible is complete and without error. It is the written word of God, that was written by the Holy Spirit, and then compiled and declared Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th Century.

You are confusing "without error" and "authoritative".

Protestants have a very weird sense of authority. You guys hold to the belief that the Bible is the supreme authority, only under God. And, as recently shown to us by Major1 in his post #356, you always go to the Bible in regards to disagreements.

This is not how authority works, nor is it even what the Bible says.

Authority works as a Ladder, and it is an up or down chain.

Protestants, obviously, do not agree with the Authority of the Catholic Church, yet claim the Bible is supreme Authority.

The Bible was given to you by the Catholic Church, compiled, and declared as Sacred Scripture at the end of the 4th century. Without this, you would not have a Bible.
Without the Catholic Church, the scriptures would not have been preserved and copied.

So, according to Protestants, the chain of Authority goes God ----> Bible, yet completely skips the tool used by God to compile it.

For Catholics, our chain goes something like this, God ----> Church ----> Bible.

This is where you believe we don't hold the Bible in high regards or as without error. We most certainly do. We hold the Bible to be authoritative, because the Church started by Jesus Christ tells us that it is authoritative and without error.

Why do you believe the Bible to be without error? Who told you it was? Who told that person? Trace it far enough back, and it leads right back to the Catholic Church.

Protestants, essentially, take the Catholic Church's word that the Bible is the written word of God and is without error, and then claim that the Catholic Church is wrong on almost everything else. What?

@Major1, if you believe that God meant all statues, then please explain to me these verses, after God had gave Moses the 10 commandments:

The Statue of the Bronze Serpent, Numbers 21:4-9

I am asking you again to not question the intelligence of anyone on this forum. It is against the rules as well as it is rude and obnacouse and as a Catholic you should no better than to do it!!!!

Discuss the subject at hand and please do not be so personal in your comments, because I for one am tired of it!!!!

YOu said.................
"You guys hold to the belief that the Bible is the supreme authority, only under God. And, as recently shown to us by Major1 in his post #356, you always go to the Bible in regards to disagreements".

Correct! Always have and always will! Over time, the Bible has always been vindicated. The ideas that contradicted it have been found to be wrong and the Bible is proven to actually be the word of God!

You as a RCC believer are saying that it was their church that gave us the Bible. You are claiming this when defending the "Sacred Tradition," so that they might support extra-biblical teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship. Would you care to find any of those RCC doctrines in a King James Bible???????

RCC believers often say the only way the Christian church knew what books are to be included in the Canon of Scripture was because it was revealed by word-of-mouth in the early church, that is, by the tradition of the Catholic Church. YOu in essence are doing the same thing.

Unfortunately, this argument implies that tradition is superior to Scripture. But when Sacred Tradition is claimed to be the thing by which Scripture is given, then tradition is inadvertently the thing that gives blessing and approval to the Bible.

Heb. 7:7 says,........
"But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater."

The unfortunate psychological effect of saying that Roman Catholic tradition is what gave us the Bible is that it elevates the RCC tradition to a level far greater than what is permitted in Scripture. In fact, it is contradicted by scripture because we see in 1 Corinthians 4:6.............

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."

Now that my dear friend is exactly what I see in your rude and uncivil dialog.

The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God--to not go beyond the written Word. Unfortunately, the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of its non-biblical teachings such as prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, works of righteousness, etc. Because it has deviated from trusting God's Word alone, it has ventured into unscriptural areas. Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not.

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really around as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution, and official church gatherings were very risky in the Roman Empire due to the persecution. Catholicism, as an organization with a central figure located in Rome, did not occur for quite some time in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic.

Jesus said in John 10:27...............
"my sheep hear my voice and they follow me . . . " .

The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired, and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, then how can they rightfully claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn't, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired.

Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself that worked through the Apostles.

Fifth, the Scripture says in 2 Peter 1:20-21...........
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Yay, this will be fun.

I am asking you again to not question the intelligence of anyone on this forum. It is against the rules as well as it is rude and obnacouse and as a Catholic you should no better than to do it!!!!

Then please explain why you questioned mine back in your thread "was Peter Baptized?" claiming that I need to do my homework or am twisting scripture because I was angry that "anyone would question the RCC"? Or have we forgotten that little bit? If you wish to call me a kettle, then don't forget you are a pot in this situation.

Correct! Always have and always will! Over time, the Bible has always been vindicated. The ideas that contradicted it have been found to be wrong and the Bible is proven to actually be the word of God!

Explain the disagreements on Baptism, the Eucharist, Heaven, Hell as a place, salvation, Faith vs Works, the forgiveness of sins, Once Saved Always Saved, trinitarian vs non-trinitarian (such as the united penecostals).

All of these arguments stem from different interpretations of the Bible, so going back to the Bible solves nothing. Why? Because both will claim that it supports them.

Lets take Baptism. You believe that water baptism is unnecessary and is merely Symbolic. The Anglican Church, Catholic Church, East Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Church of the East, and more believe that it is necessary. Simply going back to the Bible will solve nothing, as you have shown, you are adamant in your interpretation.

Who is the deciding factor, for two who disagree, when the Bible does not solve it? Who is the 3rd person needed to settle the argument?

You as a RCC believer are saying that it was their church that gave us the Bible. You are claiming this when defending the "Sacred Tradition," so that they might support extra-biblical teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship. Would you care to find any of those RCC doctrines in a King James Bible???????

Are you a KJB only person? Wonderful. Do realize that the KJB was due to a Catholic monk who provided the Scriptures.

Also, as with the Trinity, purgatory, and penance are inferred from the Bible as a whole. There is no "Mary worship", so why are you bringing it up??

Historical Fact, the Catholic Church DID give you, and the world, the Bible. At the end of the 4th century. Before this point, there was no Bible as we know of it today.

The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God--to not go beyond the written Word. Unfortunately, the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of its non-biblical teachings such as prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, works of righteousness, etc. Because it has deviated from trusting God's Word alone, it has ventured into unscriptural areas. Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not.

Word of God = Jesus Christ. NOT the Bible
word of God = the Bible.

Let us establish that for a second. Also, prayers to the saints is Biblical, purgatory is Biblical, penance is Biblical, works of righteousness are Biblical. The Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible.

You are so focused on the title "Roman Catholic Church" that you are beginning to confuse your history.

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really around as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution, and official church gatherings were very risky in the Roman Empire due to the persecution. Catholicism, as an organization with a central figure located in Rome, did not occur for quite some time in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

Would you care to provide any proof to back up your claims? Historical Documents?

The Catholic Church, has been around since Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. Your fixation on the "Roman" part is showing. Christianity was outlawed for the first few centuries of it's being, as you said. However, what you are forgetting is that The Roman Emporer was not even a Christian yet by the time of the Council of Nicea, he had simply made the religion legal.

I suggest you do some reading of the Early Church Fathers, those who lived shortly after the death of the apostles and before Christianity was legal. They will show you that what you confess is nothing like what they believed.

Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic.

Jesus said in John 10:27...............
"my sheep hear my voice and they follow me . . . " .

The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired, and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.

The Catholic Church has not added a single thing to the Bible. It was Protestants who decided to tear 7 books out of the Bible.

Question, then why were there so many heresies around before the Bible was put together? List of Christian heresies - Wikipedia

Because there were multiple books going around that also claimed to be inspired scripture such as the Gospel of Peter.

I never said "established sacred scripture", the Catholic Church declared the books as sacred scripture and compiled it together into what is now known as the Bible.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, then how can they rightfully claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn't, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired.

I said the Bible, not 1 portion of it.

But since we wish to talk about the Old Testament then. Explain to me why Protestants removed the 7 books from the Old Testament?

The Old Testament was already scripture, and then the Catholic Church added the New Testament to it and made the Bible.

I skipped 4 because it means nothing, and is clearly wrong. Essentially, it is more Catholic bashing by you.

The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

So your final argument is 'The Bible tells us."

Well, I have a fantasy book that claims to be true. Does that make it true? A book is not true simply because the book claims to be true. Same thing goes to Scripture.

A few things you are forgetting.

1) Jesus did not give us a Bible. Jesus did not write a single thing down other than words in the sand.

2) Jesus gave us a Church, He established a Church, on Peter.

3) It was the Church that was promised, by Jesus, to prevail against the gates of hell. The Church that received the Holy Spirit, and the Church was instructed to go and make new disciples. Jesus never said "read my book."

4) It was members of this Church that wrote the New Testament and it was this Church that declared the books of the NT to be sacred scripture and compiled the NT and OT into one book. The Bible.

5) The Bible is a byproduct of the Church that was established by Jesus Christ. Jesus gave authority to the Church. The Church, using that authority, gave authority to the Bible and declared it sacred scripture and without error.

Just because a book claims to be true does not make it true.

Your argument goes completely against logic and historical fact. There needs to be something, another element, with higher authority than the object in question, to give that object authority.

A book cannot be true simply because the book said it is true.

 

[Major1]

Yay, this will be fun.



Then please explain why you questioned mine back in your thread "was Peter Baptized?" claiming that I need to do my homework or am twisting scripture because I was angry that "anyone would question the RCC"? Or have we forgotten that little bit? If you wish to call me a kettle, then don't forget you are a pot in this situation.



Explain the disagreements on Baptism, the Eucharist, Heaven, Hell as a place, salvation, Faith vs Works, the forgiveness of sins, Once Saved Always Saved, trinitarian vs non-trinitarian (such as the united penecostals).

All of these arguments stem from different interpretations of the Bible, so going back to the Bible solves nothing. Why? Because both will claim that it supports them.

Lets take Baptism. You believe that water baptism is unnecessary and is merely Symbolic. The Anglican Church, Catholic Church, East Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Church of the East, and more believe that it is necessary. Simply going back to the Bible will solve nothing, as you have shown, you are adamant in your interpretation.

Who is the deciding factor, for two who disagree, when the Bible does not solve it? Who is the 3rd person needed to settle the argument?



Are you a KJB only person? Wonderful. Do realize that the KJB was due to a Catholic monk who provided the Scriptures.

Also, as with the Trinity, purgatory, and penance are inferred from the Bible as a whole. There is no "Mary worship", so why are you bringing it up??

Historical Fact, the Catholic Church DID give you, and the world, the Bible. At the end of the 4th century. Before this point, there was no Bible as we know of it today.



Word of God = Jesus Christ. NOT the Bible
word of God = the Bible.

Let us establish that for a second. Also, prayers to the saints is Biblical, purgatory is Biblical, penance is Biblical, works of righteousness are Biblical. The Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible.

You are so focused on the title "Roman Catholic Church" that you are beginning to confuse your history.



Would you care to provide any proof to back up your claims? Historical Documents?

The Catholic Church, has been around since Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. Your fixation on the "Roman" part is showing. Christianity was outlawed for the first few centuries of it's being, as you said. However, what you are forgetting is that The Roman Emporer was not even a Christian yet by the time of the Council of Nicea, he had simply made the religion legal.

I suggest you do some reading of the Early Church Fathers, those who lived shortly after the death of the apostles and before Christianity was legal. They will show you that what you confess is nothing like what they believed.



The Catholic Church has not added a single thing to the Bible. It was Protestants who decided to tear 7 books out of the Bible.

Question, then why were there so many heresies around before the Bible was put together? List of Christian heresies - Wikipedia

Because there were multiple books going around that also claimed to be inspired scripture such as the Gospel of Peter.

I never said "established sacred scripture", the Catholic Church declared the books as sacred scripture and compiled it together into what is now known as the Bible.



I said the Bible, not 1 portion of it.

But since we wish to talk about the Old Testament then. Explain to me why Protestants removed the 7 books from the Old Testament?

The Old Testament was already scripture, and then the Catholic Church added the New Testament to it and made the Bible.

I skipped 4 because it means nothing, and is clearly wrong. Essentially, it is more Catholic bashing by you.



So your final argument is 'The Bible tells us."

Well, I have a fantasy book that claims to be true. Does that make it true? A book is not true simply because the book claims to be true. Same thing goes to Scripture.

A few things you are forgetting.

1) Jesus did not give us a Bible. Jesus did not write a single thing down other than words in the sand.

2) Jesus gave us a Church, He established a Church, on Peter.

3) It was the Church that was promised, by Jesus, to prevail against the gates of hell. The Church that received the Holy Spirit, and the Church was instructed to go and make new disciples. Jesus never said "read my book."

4) It was members of this Church that wrote the New Testament and it was this Church that declared the books of the NT to be sacred scripture and compiled the NT and OT into one book. The Bible.

5) The Bible is a byproduct of the Church that was established by Jesus Christ. Jesus gave authority to the Church. The Church, using that authority, gave authority to the Bible and declared it sacred scripture and without error.

Just because a book claims to be true does not make it true.

Your argument goes completely against logic and historical fact. There needs to be something, another element, with higher authority than the object in question, to give that object authority.

A book cannot be true simply because the book said it is true.

The process of overloading anyone with so much to respond to really means that you do not want an answer at all.

You said...................
"Just because a book claims to be true does not make it true."

And THAT is the root of your argument and it is completely against the Word of God. The Bible (BOOK) is true because it claims to be. When anyone says that, there is not going to be anyway for them to grow in knowledge.

2 Timothy 3:16.........
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

Psalms 119:60...........
“The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever”.

1 Thessalonians 2:13.....
"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe."

I will not respond to all of your combined questions, but if you would like to do them one at a time I would be glad to answer you questions for you.

First of all....lets make sure we always tell the truth shall we???
Telling you to do homework is a far cry from telling others that that have no intelligence.

In comment #362 you said..............
"As Catholics, we believe the Bible is complete and without error. It is the written word of God, that was written by the Holy Spirit.................".

Then in #365 you said....................
"Simply going back to the Bible will solve nothing, as you have shown, you are adamant in your interpretation."

Ist it is ........"We believe the Bible is complete and without error and then "going back to the Bible will solve nothing".

Then where do we go to find the truth? The Catholic Catechism??????
The Baptist Statement of Faith.
The Assembly of God Statement of Faith.
The Methodists comments of truth?

Then you mention Baptism first.

I am going to allow you to show me the correct Bible teaching on Baptism.

Would YOU please post the Bible verse which say that we MUST be baptized in order to be saved?????
Please post the Bible verse that says babies must be baptized.

Then we can discuss that Bible verse and maybe we can learn from one another.

 

[Wolf_Says]

The process of overloading anyone with so much to respond to really means that you do not want an answer at all.

@_@ you gave me multiple "points" in your 1 response, now when I do the exact same thing its bad and you cannot bother to read it???

That is such intellectual dishonesty. I give you the courtesy of reading your entire post, and breaking down my responses by separating the quotes, and you cannot do the same???

If I did not want a response, I wouldn't have posted in the first place! You are being incredibly hypocritical in how you act.

1) Degrade peoples intelligence in how you respond, and then yell at me for calling you ignorant.

2) Take threads off topic and then warn others when they do so with you

3) Make really long posts as a response, but cannot respond to reply posts that might be long because THEY TOOK THE TIME TO ANSWER YOUR ENTIRE POST!

I will not make multiple posts simply to respond to your long post.

So, since you like to skip everything in a post and only answer 1 thing, I shall do the same.

You said...................
"Just because a book claims to be true does not make it true."

And THAT is the root of your argument and it is completely against the Word of God. The Bible (BOOK) is true because it claims to be. When anyone says that, there is not going to be anyway for them to grow in knowledge.

Let me show you why this is circular reasoning. Then maybe you will understand.

The Bible claims to be true, therefore the Bible is true. We disagree on what the Bible says about Baptism, lets go back to the Bible to decide.

Clearly you did not get my joke about the fantasy book. Also, you are using the wrong term, yet again.

Word of God = Jesus Christ, our Savior
Word of God =/= the Bible
word of God = the Bible

No uppercase W. How do you know the Bible is true? Or the written word of God? You believe so because the Bible claims that.

THAT ARGUMENT MAKES NO SENSE! Simply because something claims that it is true, does not automatically mean that it is true! Who judges that claim?

My stance is not against the Bible at all, but thanks for trying.

What you mistake in my posts is this. We, as Catholics, believe that the Bible is the written word of God, Sacred Scripture, and is without error. Why? Because the Church declared it so. The Church started by Jesus Christ.

If two people disagree on what the Bible says due to their own interpretations, which can be in error, how do you simple go back to the Bible to resolve it WHEN BOTH PARTIES WILL SEE THINGS WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION??

As Catholics, if we disagree on what the Bible says, we go to a third party, the Catholic Church, and look to see what the Church says. As the Church is the one who essentially gave the Bible to the world, THEY are the ones who can determine what the Bible says when it is not black and white.

Protestants, when they disagree on what the Bible says, they simply splinter and make new denominations. There is no resolution, only more chaos and confusion.

This is why I did not contradict myself like you are trying to put forward.

Then you mention Baptism first.

It does not matter what I mentioned as first. They are all areas of disagreement in Christianity where simply "going back to the Bible" has failed.

Then where do we go to find the truth?

Who gave you the Bible? Who did Jesus establish His Church on, and through that Church came the Bible? If you seriously want to look at the Bible, the please tell me, what does the Bible claim as the pillar of truth?

You are NOT going to respond to my many questions, or you CANNOT respond?

 

[Major1]

@_@ you gave me multiple "points" in your 1 response, now when I do the exact same thing its bad and you cannot bother to read it???

That is such intellectual dishonesty. I give you the courtesy of reading your entire post, and breaking down my responses by separating the quotes, and you cannot do the same???

If I did not want a response, I wouldn't have posted in the first place! You are being incredibly hypocritical in how you act.

1) Degrade peoples intelligence in how you respond, and then yell at me for calling you ignorant.

2) Take threads off topic and then warn others when they do so with you

3) Make really long posts as a response, but cannot respond to reply posts that might be long because THEY TOOK THE TIME TO ANSWER YOUR ENTIRE POST!

I will not make multiple posts simply to respond to your long post.

So, since you like to skip everything in a post and only answer 1 thing, I shall do the same.



Let me show you why this is circular reasoning. Then maybe you will understand.

The Bible claims to be true, therefore the Bible is true. We disagree on what the Bible says about Baptism, lets go back to the Bible to decide.

Clearly you did not get my joke about the fantasy book. Also, you are using the wrong term, yet again.

Word of God = Jesus Christ, our Savior
Word of God =/= the Bible
word of God = the Bible

No uppercase W. How do you know the Bible is true? Or the written word of God? You believe so because the Bible claims that.

THAT ARGUMENT MAKES NO SENSE! Simply because something claims that it is true, does not automatically mean that it is true! Who judges that claim?

My stance is not against the Bible at all, but thanks for trying.

What you mistake in my posts is this. We, as Catholics, believe that the Bible is the written word of God, Sacred Scripture, and is without error. Why? Because the Church declared it so. The Church started by Jesus Christ.

If two people disagree on what the Bible says due to their own interpretations, which can be in error, how do you simple go back to the Bible to resolve it WHEN BOTH PARTIES WILL SEE THINGS WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION??

As Catholics, if we disagree on what the Bible says, we go to a third party, the Catholic Church, and look to see what the Church says. As the Church is the one who essentially gave the Bible to the world, THEY are the ones who can determine what the Bible says when it is not black and white.

Protestants, when they disagree on what the Bible says, they simply splinter and make new denominations. There is no resolution, only more chaos and confusion.

This is why I did not contradict myself like you are trying to put forward.



It does not matter what I mentioned as first. They are all areas of disagreement in Christianity where simply "going back to the Bible" has failed.



Who gave you the Bible? Who did Jesus establish His Church on, and through that Church came the Bible? If you seriously want to look at the Bible, the please tell me, what does the Bible claim as the pillar of truth?

You are NOT going to respond to my many questions, or you CANNOT respond?

Since you refuse the opportunity to list the Bible verse that say we MUST be baptized, allow me to do that for you.

My guess is that you will follow the Catholic web sites and use Mark 16:16 ........................
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Assuming that verse 16 is original to Mark, does it teach that baptism is required for salvation? The answer is, NO, it does not. In order to make it teach that baptism is required for salvation, one must go beyond what the verse actually says. What this verse does teach is that belief is necessary for salvation.
This verse is composed of two basic statements. 1—He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2—He who does not believe will be condemned.

While this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they are saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, a third statement would be necessary...................
“He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse.

Those who try to use Mark 16:16 to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation commit a common but serious mistake that is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. This is the rule to follow: “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true."

For example, the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is true; however, the negative, “if a dog does not have brown spots, it is not an animal” is false. In the same way, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption. Yet this is exactly the assumption made by those who support baptismal regeneration.

So then how is one saved today????/ Same as they were 2000 years ago!!!!

The Bible says which you have already said is the Word of God without any errors..............

Romans 10:13 ..............
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

John 3:16...............
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. "

1 John 5:13................
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

Now that we have correctly put to rest the error of water baptism in order to be saved, what other doctrine would you like to discuss????

Again, I will be more than happy to allow you to choose something.

Hey.........what about the Rosary. Why not post the Bible verses which tell us about the Rosary and why it is to be said?????

If you do not want to discuss that then here are some more that we can discuss and look for common ground. NOW I ONLY DO THIS BECAUSE YOU STATED ALREADY THAT YOU AND THE RCC BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD AND HAS NO ERRORS.

How about...........
1. Purgatory.
2. Celibacy of the bishops.
3. Calling the bishops "Father".
4. Mary was sinless.
5. The perpetual virginity of Mary.
6. Only very special Catholic believers are saints.
7. The RCC forbids bishops to be married, BUT Peter was married.
8. Violation of the 2nd Commandment.

YOU just pick one that you would like to discuss and give the Bible book, chapter and verse and we can talk about anything you chose. "That is my olive branch to you" my friend.

Right out in the open for all to see and follow along. The choice is yours.

 

[concretecamper]

Those who try to use Mark 16:16 to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation commit a common but serious mistake that is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. This is the rule to follow: “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true."

For example, the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is true; however, the negative, “if a dog does not have brown spots, it is not an animal” is false. In the same way, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption. Yet this is exactly the assumption made by those who support baptismal regeneration.

It is interesting that you use an adjective (brown spots) that describes the dog (noun) to compare to 2 seperate actions ( belief AND Baptism).

That can with brown spots is round....oops cans without brown spots can be round
The water is blue....oops not all water is blue
That protestant is arrogant....oops not all protestants are arrogant.

Try again...dont expect me to help you out, I am having too much fun watching this.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Since you refuse the opportunity to list the Bible verse that say we MUST be baptized, allow me to do that for you.

My guess is that you will follow the Catholic web sites and use Mark 16:16 ........................
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Assuming that verse 16 is original to Mark, does it teach that baptism is required for salvation? The answer is, NO, it does not. In order to make it teach that baptism is required for salvation, one must go beyond what the verse actually says. What this verse does teach is that belief is necessary for salvation.
This verse is composed of two basic statements. 1—He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2—He who does not believe will be condemned.

While this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they are saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, a third statement would be necessary...................
“He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse.

Those who try to use Mark 16:16 to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation commit a common but serious mistake that is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. This is the rule to follow: “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true."

For example, the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is true; however, the negative, “if a dog does not have brown spots, it is not an animal” is false. In the same way, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption. Yet this is exactly the assumption made by those who support baptismal regeneration.

So then how is one saved today????/ Same as they were 2000 years ago!!!!

The Bible says which you have already said is the Word of God without any errors..............

Romans 10:13 ..............
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

John 3:16...............
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. "

1 John 5:13................
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

Now that we have correctly put to rest the error of water baptism in order to be saved, what other doctrine would you like to discuss????

Again, I will be more than happy to allow you to choose something.

Hey.........what about the Rosary. Why not post the Bible verses which tell us about the Rosary and why it is to be said?????

If you do not want to discuss that then here are some more that we can discuss and look for common ground. NOW I ONLY DO THIS BECAUSE YOU STATED ALREADY THAT YOU AND THE RCC BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD AND HAS NO ERRORS.

How about...........
1. Purgatory.
2. Celibacy of the bishops.
3. Calling the bishops "Father".
4. Mary was sinless.
5. The perpetual virginity of Mary.
6. Only very special Catholic believers are saints.
7. The RCC forbids bishops to be married, BUT Peter was married.
8. Violation of the 2nd Commandment.

YOU just pick one that you would like to discuss and give the Bible book, chapter and verse and we can talk about anything you chose. "That is my olive branch to you" my friend.

Right out in the open for all to see and follow along. The choice is yours.

Wow.....so...you skip everything in my post? No wonder nobody takes you seriously. I actually read your post, and responded accurately. But you....simply dont. You look only to see if I posted anything in regards to Baptism.

Honestly, thats sad. You dont seem to really wish to debate, just slander.

Actually no....if I decided to answer your bait tactic, I would use John 3:5. However, I already did back in your other thread and you respond with "I need to do my homework".

You are giving the perfect example as to why simply going back to the Bible does not solve anything.

I gave you where in the Bible it says Baptism is needed, you disagree and claims it means something else. Please explain to me HOW the Bible alone will solve this problem?

Also, you seemed to skip the passage of the statue of the bronze serpent that I posted earlier. Please, explain how that does not break your 2nd commandment?

Either please learn to reply to my full response to you, admit that you cannot reply to them, or simply stop. This game of hypocrisy has honestly gone on long enough.

Also, Bible alone is YOUR limitation, not mine.

 

[concretecamper]

The Bible (BOOK) is true because it claims to be.

1 Thessalonians 2:13.....
"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe."

The Bible is not what is being referred to hear. You cannot hear a book. Now If you want to go down the Sacred Tradition route and oral transmission....I'm all for it

 

[Major1]

The Bible is not what is being referred to hear. You cannot hear a book. Now If you want to go down the Sacred Tradition route and oral transmission....I'm all for it

Thank you my friend for the comment and the opportunity to get out the Word of God in response to it.

The word of God which you heard from us .................
is literally "a word of hearing from alongside us, of God".
The phrase word of hearing indicates it was an oral message.

This reference to the oral nature of the message received by the Thessalonians reminds us that at that time the spread of Christianity was largely brought about through the spoken word, for the NT writings had not yet been produced.

And so for some 30 years after Christ's ascension the main apostolic teaching was done by a living preacher and not by the circulation of books or letters. This pattern emphasizes the high place which preaching held as a means of bestowing the grace of God upon the hearers. Is preaching still held in such high esteem or is it considered a means of attracting seekers with user friendly stories?

Praise God for preachers who are holding fast to the Word of Truth and preaching preach the word, whether the time is favorable or not, patiently correcting, rebuking and exhorting the sheep with great patience and instruction.

This idea of a word of hearing is seen elsewhere in Scripture both negative and positive…

Negatively in Hebrews 4:12 .......
"For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they (the Hebrews who came out of Egypt and wandered in the Wilderness for forty years) also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard."

Positively in Romans 10:16......
"However, they did not all heed the glad tidings; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?

The response then is seen in Rom. 10:17.....
" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."

 

[Major1]

Wow.....so...you skip everything in my post? No wonder nobody takes you seriously. I actually read your post, and responded accurately. But you....simply dont. You look only to see if I posted anything in regards to Baptism.

Honestly, thats sad. You dont seem to really wish to debate, just slander.

Actually no....if I decided to answer your bait tactic, I would use John 3:5. However, I already did back in your other thread and you respond with "I need to do my homework".

You are giving the perfect example as to why simply going back to the Bible does not solve anything.

I gave you where in the Bible it says Baptism is needed, you disagree and claims it means something else. Please explain to me HOW the Bible alone will solve this problem?

Also, you seemed to skip the passage of the statue of the bronze serpent that I posted earlier. Please, explain how that does not break your 2nd commandment?

Either please learn to reply to my full response to you, admit that you cannot reply to them, or simply stop. This game of hypocrisy has honestly gone on long enough.

Also, Bible alone is YOUR limitation, not mine.

Again...............only personal comments aimed at me and NO response to the subject at hand or the thread in which we are discussing "Adding to the Scriptures".

By your inability to respond to the things I asked you, I can only surmise that either you do not know or that you do not care.

IF you gave me a Bible verse that says water baptism MUST be done in order to be saved, I certainly missed it. Would you please post that verse again for me????????

As for Numbers 21:9 you have obviously confused it with the 2nd Commandment.

Exodus 20:4 says...............
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.

Numbers 21:9 says...............
"And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived."

The event was directed by God to Moses and as the Creator He can do what ever He wants to do.
The people did not bow down to the serpant, but looked upon it IN FAITH and that is the key.

This bronze snake was not an idol because it was not worshipped.

Since you are unable to discuss water baptism as a requirement, maybe we can go on to another NON-Biblical Catholic teaching..........."PURGATORY".

Pick a translation...........
KJV
ESV
NIV
ASV
NKJV

Now using the Bible, please post the verses that we see the words "Purgatory" or even where it is suggested in the Bible.

Now, remember, YOU have stated that YOU believe the Bible to be the Word of God and it contains no errors so this one should be really easy for you.

 

[Major1]

It is interesting that you use an adjective (brown spots) that describes the dog (noun) to compare to 2 seperate actions ( belief AND Baptism).

That can with brown spots is round....oops cans without brown spots can be round
The water is blue....oops not all water is blue
That protestant is arrogant....oops not all protestants are arrogant.

Try again...dont expect me to help you out, I am having too much fun watching this.

AMEN !!!

The help you are giving and I Thank you for it is your input and questions and comments. Every one of them allows me to get out the Word of God on a world wide scope.

Personally, I thought that the statement about “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is true; however, the negative, “if a dog does not have brown spots, it is not an animal” is false. In the same way, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption. Yet this is exactly the assumption made by those who support baptismal regeneration.

 

[concretecamper]

AMEN !!!

The help you are giving and I Thank you for it is your input and questions and comments. Every one of them allows me to get out the Word of God on a world wide scope.

Personally, I thought that the statement about “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is true; however, the negative, “if a dog does not have brown spots, it is not an animal” is false. In the same way, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption. Yet this is exactly the assumption made by those who support baptismal regeneration.

Again, your comparison is for the dogs

I'll help you out a little even though i said I would not.

The example you gave us listed a condition of the dog...it has spots.

In Mark 16 Jesus gave us 2 requirements for Salvation which were Baptism and Belief. This statement of His does not mean there are not other Requirements. You and others have incorrectly looked at Belief and Baptism an conditions that may or may not be related. Jesus is very clear in Mark...He gave is 2 requirements for salvation.

So please give us an absolutely true statement that lists 2 requirements for a desired result and then apply you negative doo hicky rule.

Geez, using the negative inference falicy the way you presented it and freely using implied truth, you can get the bible to mean anything you want. Maybe I justr stumbled on the reason for 30,000 protestant denominations

 

[concretecamper]

Boy, I must be in a good mood today, I'll go first with an example.

Harvard lists 2 requirements for acceptance: SATs over 2,000 and a GPA of 3.9 or higher. Let's see how you negative doo hicky works.

If I get over 2,000 in the SATs and I have a GPA of 3.9, I can get into Harvard. TRUE
(This doesn't mean Havard does not have other requirements)

If I do not get over 2,000 in the SATs and I have a GPA of 3.9, I cannot get into Harvard. TRUE

If I get over 2,000 in the SATs and I do not get a GPA of 3.9 or higher I cannot get into Harvard. TRUE

QED

YOUR TURN

 

[Major1]

Again, your comparison is for the dogs

I'll help you out a little even though i said I would not.

The example you gave us listed a condition of the dog...it has spots.

In Mark 16 Jesus gave us 2 requirements for Salvation which were Baptism and Belief. This statement of His does not mean there are not other Requirements. You and others have incorrectly looked at Belief and Baptism an conditions that may or may not be related. Jesus is very clear in Mark...He gave is 2 requirements for salvation.

So please give us an absolutely true statement that lists 2 requirements for a desired result and then apply you negative doo hicky rule.

Geez, using the negative inference falicy the way you presented it and freely using implied truth, you can get the bible to mean anything you want. Maybe I justr stumbled on the reason for 30,000 protestant denominations

Jesus did not give two requirements for salvation.

There is only one requirement for salvation and it is to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

You being a Catholic may not have heard that but it is none the less the Bible fact.

In fact that is children's church 101!!!!

Theologically speaking, there is some question as to whether these verses were originally part of the Gospel of Mark or whether they were added later by a scribe. As a result, it is best not to base a key doctrine on anything from Mark 16:9-20, such as baptism and snake handling, unless it is also supported by other passages of Scripture.

Do you have other supporting Scriptures???

 

[Major1]

Boy, I must be in a good mood today, I'll go first with an example.

Harvard lists 2 requirements for acceptance: SATs over 2,000 and a GPA of 3.9 or higher. Let's see how you negative doo hicky works.

If I get over 2,000 in the SATs and I have a GPA of 3.9, I can get into Harvard. TRUE
(This doesn't mean Havard does not have other requirements)

If I do not get over 2,000 in the SATs and I have a GPA of 3.9, I cannot get into Harvard. TRUE

If I get over 2,000 in the SATs and I do not get a GPA of 3.9 or higher I cannot get into Harvard. TRUE

QED

YOUR TURN

Easy one. You continue to show all of use your problems with the truth and comprehension.

LOOK IT UP...........The highest score for a SAT score is 1600!!!!

So your whole premise is just as inaccurate as your theology.

 

[concretecamper]

Easy one. You continue to show all of use your problems with the truth and comprehension.

LOOK IT UP...........The highest score for a SAT score is 1600!!!!

So your whole premise is just as inaccurate as your theology.

It was 1,600, then they added an essay which made it 2,400 for bit and now it is back to 1,600. I'm not even sure what Harvard's requirements are, it is for example purposes.

Now, are you going to bother to give us an example?

 

[concretecamper]

Jesus did not give two requirements for salvation.

There is only one requirement for salvation and it is to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

You being a Catholic may not have heard that but it is none the less the Bible fact.

In fact that is children's church 101!!!!

Theologically speaking, there is some question as to whether these verses were originally part of the Gospel of Mark or whether they were added later by a scribe. As a result, it is best not to base a key doctrine on anything from Mark 16:9-20, such as baptism and snake handling, unless it is also supported by other passages of Scripture.

Do you have other supporting Scriptures???

Thank you my friend for displaying your error for the rest of us to see. You are backed into a corner and as a result call into question the Bible. You are the first protestant I have ever seen do this. Congrats!!!!!