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.
If I took all the essays of the grade nine class in History and put them in a book. I cannot claim that I wrote them.Yes. The bishops at Nicea didn't get together and have a bible study and debate each others personal interpretations. They looked at what the apostles taught and sought to preserve that apostolic faith.
Trent did not condemn scripture. No one in the early church believe scripture alone or faith alone. Both are man-made traditions invented in the 16th century.
The Apostles were mere men.
They were given this authority while Christ was still on this earth. Long before there was "the church" that you speak of.But they were given this authority because the Church was given the authority.
The Apostles were not the only ones to whom Christ gave the authority. Remember that the other disciples were also there when Christ sent the Spirit. It wasn't JUST the Apostles. In point of fact, two of the authors of the epistles and gospels in the NT were not Apostles sent directly by Christ, so the authority passed from those who recruited them, namely from Paul on to John-Mark and Luke.
So there are second-generation Christians who had so much authority in their writings and teachings that they were able to write Scripture and lead with the same authority as Paul and Peter.]/quote]
Please name some and give the name of their canonized works.
And how did they look at what the apostles taught?
You should really dedicate time to reading all of the sessions that pertain to the Council of Trent.
Just because the phrase "word of God" and scripture are used in the same verse doesn't mean it's saying scripture is the word of God. The scripture Jesus referred to is the Psalms where it refers to the judges of Israel as gods. The word of God came to those judges orally, through the prophets, not through scripture.
What?! That is not all that Mt. 4:4 says! Just what is the Lord quoting from in context? Why do you leave that out?Scripture isn't even mentioned in Mt. 4:4 so how could you possibly interpret it to say scripture is the word of God?
Mt 4:4 says "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God."
Now that you've been refuted and shown the verses you quoted don't teach what you claim, are you willing to retract your statement that scripture calls itself God's Word?
Peter was married.They looked at what the Church taught and passed down through the bishops who were the successors of the apostles.
I read all of the sessions of the Council of Trent. It is a beautiful and authentic representation of the ancient Christian faith that Christians believe.
Like Mormonism.Correct. They're what sociologists call "functional myths" that are important for keeping the membership believing in the organization. It's interesting to note that, when we study the cults, it can be seen that almost all of them use such myths in one way or another.
You, then, are saying that other mere men are now choosing who has this power. Right?
How is that even possible?
Certainly the word of God came to those judges orally, but which did not cease to be the word of God when it was recorded, and it was the record of that word of God which the Lord is referring to in stating, Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34)
And the word of God that was recorded under the inspiration of God is what the Lord referred to in stating that "the scripture cannot be broken" in the next verse.
Thus the recorded word of God is still the word of God, while you must make it to cease to be so in order to deny that what is called Scripture here is said to be the word of God.
What?! That is not all that Mt. 4:4 says! Just what is the Lord quoting from in context? Why do you leave that out?
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)
In order to deny that this text is referring to Scripture being the word of God then you must construe the Lord as invoking as a command what is not the word of God in teaching that man is to live by the word of God!
What lengths Caths will go to in order to support their vain traditions!
And of course, you must also hold that a body of writings which are wholly inspired of God are not the words of God.
Now that you've been refuted and shown the verses you quoted don't teach what you claim, are you willing to retract your statement that scripture does not calls itself the word of God?
The problem with your interpretation that the church Jesus founded is invisible is that the rest of scripture clearly shows Jesus founded a visible church.
Which is simply contrary to what Scripture reveals of the NT church.Most "evangelicals" I've met reject the ancient Christian faith in favor of modern heresies like faith alone, scripture alone, baptism is just a symbol, the Eucharist is merely symbolic, OSAS, etc. I like the RCC and OC because they teach the same gospel taught in scripture that was taught by the church throughout history in every century.
With one voice, one doctrine? Anglicanism is just choosing your own doctrines. I've been to an Episcopal parish before and they had a pamphlet on the Virgin Mary (among other pamphlets), and inside it said not all Anglicans believe in the Virgin Birth, but nonetheless the Virgin Mary is highly regarded.Excuse me, but mine IS only one church, just like yours is.
Peter was married
How did they look at, what did they look at, that was handed down through the bishops that were the successors of the apostles?
Which is a false dilemma, for the fact that there is a visible church does not deny that there is an "invisible" (in the sense of a particular, defined organic community) church which may not even be able to find a visible community where he resides.
If you deny the mystical body of Christ then you are not even a faithful RC, since V2 certainly does.
Which is simply contrary to what Scripture reveals of the NT church.
For the NT church manifestly did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, nor did it have a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" or distinctively titled "priests ," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which is to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.
Nor is it otherwise Scripturally manifest in the life of the church as being the sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."
Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.
All you've shown is that scripture contains some of the word of God that was revealed orally. The Catholic catechism contains the word of God from the prophets too. Does that mean the Catholic catechism is the word of God?
It is irrelevant. "It is written" is referring to Jesus quoting the Old Testament verse. It says nothing about scripture being the word of God. The OT said man shall live by the words that proceed from the mouth of God. Jesus said what he quoted was written in the OT. How on earth does that mean scripture called itself the word of God? Not even close. Try again.
Which claim impugns what you claim.All I did was rely on very basic reading comprehension to explain what the verse was saying.
That "thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works," (2 Timothy 3:15-17) does not teach that this wholly inspired-of-God word is not the word of God is "strange logic?"Strange logic.
Yet laying on a hands was not restricted to apostles, or elders.Laying on a hands was a common Jewish practice to confer authority or divine power. The early church was not Congregationalist.
So despite your untenable assertion, you argument is still that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)\The Curators didn't paint the Mona Lisa. Members of the Catholic Church did write the New Testament, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
EO and Catholics agree that the Church was united for hundreds of years. It was founded by Christ.
We disagree about who left who.
For that we must consider what Scripture is said to be, which is wholly inspired of God. Which thus means it is the word of God, which in all its forms, correctly understood, and used is for doctrine, reproof, training in Godliness, etc.
So yes, if Catholic catechism was said to be wholly inspired of God as Scripture is, then it would be the word of God. And thus your next two attempts to defend your absurdity are refuted
What? The Lord is quoting a command from Scripture to live by every word of God in response to a contrary suggestion, and does the same thing two more times right after this, as well as often quoting Scripture as Divine authority, yet the very command to live by every word of God is not the word of God? Logic? No, absurdity!
That "thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works," (2 Timothy 3:15-17) does not teach that this wholly inspired-of-God word is not the word of God is "strange logic?"
What is your understanding of Biblical inerrancy?Biblical inerrancy is a creation of the Church. It s a case of misapplied faith, a form of idol worship.
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?